Compare And Contrast Different Organisational Structures And Cultures

Comp be And Contrast Different Organisational Structures And nuancesIntroduction Organisations are complex, well-disposed systems which seek to make the lift out use of people as a vital and essential resource, especially in todays increasingly dynamic, globalised and rivalrous environment (Mullins, 2010 39). They posses distinct identities, which are developed and renderd from a mix of how they choose to create, present and market place their rail line to the world, the type of services and/or products provided and the refining that emerges as a consequence (Clegg et al, 2011, 14-16). Organisational twist should be driven by corporate strategy and the resulting objectives and tasks in order to facilitate the delivery of economical and efficient business public presentation Performance management and the monitoring of activities Accountability Co-ordination across the business Flexibility and adaptability providing a framework for stir and innovation (Hayes, 2010 270-28 2) loving satisfaction for those working within the system. (Fineman et al, 2010 1-12). Therefore, government activitys are systematically arranged frameworks pursuance to create a coordinated, organic body which relates people, key business assets, friendship and dexterous property in a design that aims to achieve specific goals (Clegg et al, 2011 666). Basic models of system of rulesal structure which have evolved in an effort to balance these factors are illustrated in appendix 1. However, to be triumphful make-ups must not operate in isolation from the environment that surrounds them (Morgan, 2006 3842), and or so of the key aspects to overturn are highlighted in accessory 2. One of the most complex factors is that of culture comprised of the habits, determine, mores and ways of acting by which people identify themselves and others (Clegg et al, 2011 216). Organisational culture therefore relates to those patterns of beliefs, values and learned ways of manage w ith experience that have developed during the course of an organisations history, and which tend to be manifested in its material arrangements and the behaviours of its members (Br proclaim, 1998 9 Schein, 2010 7-21). The burning(prenominal), though often intangible, cultural aspects of an organisation ultimately shape which levers of power and define are the most effective in driving individual and group behaviours, ultimately affecting business performance and success (Linstead et al, 149194). These factors are summarised in Appendix 3. In essence, culture bed be regarded as being the personality of an organisation and as it shapes how people intuitive feeling it is not something that can be easily managed (Stacey, 2011 78-89). Organisational structures ( factly those imposed or developed during a period of change) that do not consider these cultural aspects can regress discontent, inefficiency, resistance and resentment from employees (Cunliffe, 2008 4568). Consequently, it is vital to reflect upon culture when considering organisational design as the in globe structures that result are as important as the formal mechanisms and management arrangements created (Schein, 2010 177-196). Ultimately, the decisions, actions and major exploitations of organisations are influenced and determined by shifting coalitions of individuals attempting to protect or enhance their own interests (Burnes, 2009 197).Comparing organisational structures In developing the organisational designs outlined in Appendix 1, key factors must be considered which will shape the structural decisions taken. These are Scale. Whilst larger organisations can benefit from efficiencies construct around economies of scale, the greater complexity involved in managing large numbers of people with less likelihood of direct interpersonal contact often calls for more sophisticated organisational designs. Technology. This is the combination of resources, knowledge and techniques that creates an o rganisations products or services. The match between structure and technology the technological imperative is vital to maintain competitive advantage in youthful business. For example, successful mass production operations have rigid structures built around large working groups. Environment. A successful business understands that they shoot to ask over various inputs from the environment within which they operate and as well as sell their outputs into this environment. Structures therefore need to recognise factors such as global economics/markets, suppliers and competitors. Strategy. Organisational strategy the exhibit of positioning the organisation in its competitive environment and implementing actions to compete successfully shapes design. Developing the organisations unique selling point or market differentiation by building a structure that protects and develops key competences is a critical come forward if business growth is to be maintained. (French et al, 2008 33 0334) Consequently, in considering the relative merits of the structures shown in Appendix 1, the following observations can be madeFunctional structure Organisations built around useable structures deliver clear task assignments which can be easily aligned to the skills and training of individuals and teams ((Stewart et al, 1999 82-88). The structure is easy to explain to employees, suppliers and customers whilst also facilitating intragroup communications and problem solving as knowledge pools are prize and shared. Importantly, such structures also assist in the development of leaders and managers as functional peers and spiffings are clearly identified and should be accessible (French et al, 2008 348). Unfortunately, such functional approaches can lead to the growth of sectional interests which may difference with the needs of the organisation as a whole ( dinero Kelly, 2011 251). In focussing on the organisations functional hierarchy for direction and reinforcement, indivi duals and teams can lose sight of the importance of products, services or clients the leadership is drawn into cross-functional problems (Adair, 2002 17-25). As a consequence, conflict between functional units can increase with internal communications becoming ever more complex as they attempt to minimise such issues (French et al, 2008 348). harvest-home structure Large organisations with a wide product or service range are often attracted to a product-based structure as it can be more responsive to technological change as people are grouped on the basis of their expertise (and supporting infrastructure) within a particular unit (Hayes, 2010 87-104). Such an approach also enables/supports rapid diversification and skills expansion in that additional product or service areas can be collective relatively easily (Cole Kelly, 2011 251). This organisational methodology can introduce unnecessary internal competition between business units as certain product groups are promoted to the hurt of other divisions of the organisation (Nadler Tushman, 1997 71-88). Senior managers are faced with the challenge of takeling such behaviour whilst also recognising that the associated incentive and reward structures are inevitably built around the success of individual product lines (Burnes, 2009 104106).Geographic structure Large national or multi-national entities face significant logistical and communication challenges and this usually makes some kind of regional or area structure essential for effective decision making and control (Nadler Tushman, 1997 59-70). Whilst this produces the benefits associated with a more decentralised approach (such as a focus on local customers and being responsive to regional market pressures), it does cause concern for senior managers seeking to set a unified corporate direction (Linstead et al, 2011 225226). Significant leadership and senior management effort must be spent on visiting geographically dispersed business elements in order to maintain personal relationships by dint of face-to-face contact, thus avoiding corrosive and self-defeating internal competition (French et al, 2008 350).Vertical specialisation The structures outlined higher up provide a clear separation of authority and activities on the basis of hierarchical ranking within the organisation. The chain of command created on the basis of upright piano specialisation ensures that senior leaders plan and set the overall strategy with specific lower-level guidelines, and metrics issued for the implementation of that strategy (Morgan, 2006 2425, 104). Those organisations with m whatever levels of hierarchy and control are considered as being tall, whilst those with only a a few(prenominal) levels are described as being flat (French et al, 2008 343). It is usually the case that the pamper structures allow greater decentralisation of decision-making and autonomy through the organisation whilst the taller structures focus on tighter, closer contr ol mechanisms. The most effective balance for the organisation bear on must recognise the critical success factors set, the direct environment of the business and the existing corporate culture in relation to the perceived culture needful (Mullins, 2010 508512 Stacey, 2011 94-105).Unity of command, span of control and sensemaking As well as addressing the requirements of vertical specialisation, functional, product and geographic structures also seek to apply both key tenets of true management theory Unity of Command an employee should receive orders and direction from only one superior. Span of Control the number of people reporting to one superior must not be so large that it creates problems of communication and coordination. (Morgan, 2006 19) These aspects are shaped by the organisations sensemaking abilities i.e. the skills and competences of managers to make sense of what they do (Clegg et al, 2011 668). Sensemaking is a complex issue involving Social context consideri ng the actual, implied or imagined views or presence of others Personal Identity a personal or group view of who they are (and their organisational identity) Retrospection this is important within organisations, as sometimes the most important decisions are the least visible initially. Salient cues managers using past experiences and relating them to current scenarios in order to shape their actions and attitudes. Ongoing abides what structure or patterns exist within the organisation to allow managers the time and space to revaluation and reflect upon an issue and change direction or tempo if necessary. Plausibility developing enough meaning to drive forward with a project. Enactment The ability to react and shape or amend an evolving situation. drawing and Doing the ability to understand an emerging business scenario and then isolate key themes in order to understand what is going on. (Clegg et al, 2011 22) Given these complexities, many organisations are seeking to devel op mixed structures which seek to obtain the benefits potentially provided by the functional, product and geographical forms of organisation whilst also recognising the importance of these inter-personal aspects (Morgan, 2006 5052). Appendix 1 illustrates two models that aim to do so Divisional and Matrix structures.Divisional structure A divisional structure seeks to overcome the problems associated with product or geographic renewing as each division can respond to the specific requirements of its product or market strategy ( illusionson et al, 2011 434). Divisional managers have greater personal monomania of their strategies and their teams, allowing for the development of competences focussed on a particular product range, technology area or customer grouping (Henry, 2011 318319). A divisional structure also provides significant flexibility as organisations can add, close or merge divisions as circumstances change (Johnson et al, 2011 435). Whilst delivering a flexible and re sponsive organisation, a divisional structure does present a business with three key disadvantages Divisions can become too autonomous, operating as independent businesses but introducing inefficiency by duplicating the functions and cost of the corporate centre. Personal and team identity is rooted in the division quite a than the wider business, inhibiting cooperation, knowledge sharing and fragmenting expertise. Divisions can end up pursing their own strategies heedless of the needs of the corporate centre which loses control and is only able to add minimal value to the operation (Cole Kelly 2011251252).Matrix structure A matrix organisation seeks to overlay a horizontal structure based on products, projects, business activities or geographic area upon the more traditional vertical specialisation structure (Clegg et al 2011 544). This introduces dual or even multiple lines of authority and responsibility in an effort to deliver flexibility in relation to the forming of project teams, modify the utilisation of resources and to encourage cross-functional cooperation (Linstead et al, 2011 216218). The vertical specialisation is seen as enduring, with the horizontal interaction often regarded as being temporary with the relationships dissolved as activities or projects are completed (Pettigrew Fenton, 2000 117143 Wall Minocha, 2010 319321). However, unless carefully controlled, matrix management complicates the unity of command and span of control aspects previously discussed (Morgan, 2006 19). Without clear boundaries, organisational conflict between functional and project managers can emerge, the autonomy of line managers can be eroded and decision making becomes more inefficient leading to increased overheads (Clegg et al, 2011 545).Organisational culture Having recognised that organisations do not operate in a vacuum and that it is important to create a structure that maximises the business return from the environment within which it operates, it is i mportant to consider how culture (the shared ways of thinking and behaving) shapes success (Cole Kelly, 2011 590). Eight cultural characteristics have been identified as being critical for organisational success A deviate for action doing rather than discussing Staying close to the customer learning about their requirements and meeting them in full Autonomy and entrepreneurship being encouraged to think Productivity through people recognising and rewarding best efforts Hands on executives keeping in touch and displaying corporate values Core competences focussed on what you do best Simplicity where possible lean organisations with the fewest possible layers Loose-tight properties focussed on core values whilst allowing tolerance to explore and challenge. (Peters Waterman, 1982 89-318) In shaping an organisation in an attempt to maximise the potential return from these cultural characteristics, it is sensible to recognise the origins of corporate culture which are essentia lly The societal or national culture within which an organisation is physically situated. For large, multi-national organisations this introduces the challenge of understanding and incorporating different and cultural frameworks The vision, management style and personality of an organisations founder or preponderating leader The type of business an organisation conducts and the nature of its business environment. (Brown, 1998 42) Culture is therefore about an organisations history, stories, language and values rather than the application of theoretical models (Cunliffe, 2008 55). Culture in the organisational context becomes a critical success factor because It shapes the image that key stakeholders (including customers) have of the company and can become a crucial element of product or business differentiation within a market segment It influences performance as a positive culture (supporting the image and success of the business) that is essential to meeting corporate goals and t he requirements of the wider business environment. A negative or counter-culture such as that which could emerge during a period of restructuring can work against organisational strong suit It provides direction, as mission, vision and values statements identify where the business is going and how it plans to get there. A culture that creates a shared ownership of goals and which guides decision making can reduce the need for direct control because people know what is expected of them, how to behave and what they will be rewarded for. It can attract and retain skilled and incite staff. Strong cultures can have a powerful effect on the behaviour and commitment of employees. (Cunliffe, 2008 5859) In terms of cultural analysis, three levels of review can be considered Observable culture, often described as the way things are done, which are often the methods, rituals, ceremonies and symbols used to impart an organisations shared values and approaches to new members (such as within induction programmes) Shared values, often manifested through statements aimed at delivering direction and cohesion and underpinned by identifiers such as the wearing of a uniform Common assumptions i.e. the accepted truths (often implicit and unspoken) that members of an organisation share as a result of their joint experiences. (French et al, 2008 380382) Attempts have been made to codify the core organisational cultures that are presented and the commonly found models are Role Culture focussed on rules, tasks, procedures and job descriptions Power Culture power exercised by a central estimate with few formal rules Person Culture the organisation exists for the benefit of its members Process Culture the following of highly regulated processes Tough-guy Culture driven by the need to take quick decisions, underpinned by risk-taking and a competitive ethos Work Hard/Play Hard Culture aiming to balance performance with work-place enjoyment Bet-Your-Company Culture a long-term outlook built upon significant (early) investment Bureaucratic Culture a focus on consistency, control, efficiency and conformity Clan Culture focussed on commitment, involvement, teamwork and participation Task/Mission Culture goal oriented with rewards based on achieving mission and goals Adaptability Culture focussed on flexibility, innovation, risk-taking, empowerment and learning. (French et al, 2008 394395 Cunliffe, 2008 65, Cole Kelly, 2011 146-149) If strategies are to be developed that may change the structure of an organisation then it will also be necessary to potentially challenge and change the underpinning culture (Hayes, 2010 438-447) considering purely rational processes such as planning and resource allocation will not be enough (Johnson et al, 2011 181). However, dangers do exist when conducting any analysis of organisational culture as it is too easy to over-simplify or even trivialise the issues involved it is not something that can be reduced to a few tra its, easily linked to performance issues or readily managed (Johnson et al, 2011 182). Managers can shape culture through vision and value statements, supported by their own actions and expectations and this includes the organisational structure applied (Cunliffe, 2008 67). The power levers to be applied within the organisation and the cultural interaction that results should also be considered (see Appendix 3). However, perspectives on culture will influence the corporate view as to its relevance and importance to the sustainable success of the business and these views are essentially Integration the culture of the organisation is relatively clear, unmistakable and straightforward Differentiation recognising the existence of sub-cultures within groups that are not easily identified or understood and which can inhibit change or development initiatives if not addressed Fragmentation no real cultural consensus can be identified around which any business strategy or organisation ca n be built (Brown 1998 296-297)Summary and conclusions Ultimately, organisational design is taken forward by corporate leaders and key decision makers whose choices are based upon their own predispositions (experiences, values and beliefs) (Cole and Kelly, 2011 256, Nadler Tushman, 1997 21). Therefore, although decisions are overtly based upon what is seen to be the best and most efficient construct for the business, in reality cultural factors prove to be unspoilt as important. Organisational culture is the basic assumption and beliefs shared by the members of an organisation, operating unconsciously and which help to define a companys view of itself and its operating environment (Schein, 2010219-234). Culture may contribute to the capabilities and strategic direction/effectiveness of an organisation, but it can also stifle necessary development and evolution if internal values and mores do not reflect external changes. Organisational structures and cultural influences can there fore both inform and constrain the strategic development and ultimately the conflict of a business In order to maintain competitive advantage and to avoid any strategic drift (where culture and organisational factors drive the business rather than the needs of customers and key stakeholders), both should be critically reviewed and their impact considered regularly by leaders and senior managers.References Adair, J. (2002). Effective Strategic Leadership, Basingstoke Pan Macmillan Ltd. Brown, A. (1998). Organizational Culture, second Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change, 5th Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. Cole, G.A., Kelly, P. (2011). Management Theory and Practice, 7th Edition, Andover Cengage Learning EMEA. Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., Pitsis, T. (2011). Managing Organizations An Introduction to the Theory Practice, 3rd Edition, London sage Publications Ltd. Cunliffe, A.L. (2008). Organization Theory, London Sage Publications Ltd. Fine man, S., Gabriel, Y., Sims, D. (2010). Organizing Organizations, 4th Edition, London Sage Publications Ltd. French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., Rumbles, S. (2008). Organizational Behaviour, Chichester John Wiley Sons Ltd. Hayes, J. (2010). The Theory and Practice of Change Management, 3rd Edition, Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Henry, A.E. (2011). Understanding Strategic Management, 2nd Edition, Oxford Oxford University force per unit area. Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K. (2011). Exploring Strategy, 9th Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. Kakabadse, A., Ludlow R., Vinnicombe, S. (1988). Working in Organisations, Aldershot Penguin. Linstead, S., Fulop, L., Lilley, S. (2009). Management Organization A Critical Text, 2nd Edition, Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization, London Sage Publications Ltd, Mullins, L.J. (2010). Management Organisational Behaviour, 9th Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. Nadler, D.A., Tushman, M.L. (199 7). Competing by Design The Power of Organizational Architecture, in the altogether York Oxford University Press Inc. Peters, T.J., Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence Lessons from Americas Best Run Companies, New York Harper Row Inc. Pettigrew, A.M., Fenton, E.M. (2000). The Innovating Organization, London Sage Publications Ltd. Schein, E.H. (2010). Organisational Culture and Leadership, 4th Edition, San Francisco John Wiley Sons Inc.Stacey, R.D. (2011). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations, 6 th Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd Stewart, G.L., Manz, C.C., Sims, H.P. (1999). Team Work and Group Dynamics, New York John Wiley Sons Inc. Wall, S., Minocha, S., Rees, B. (2010). International Business, 3rd Edition, Harlow Pearson Education Ltd. APPENDIX 1MODELS AND ASPECTS OF ORGANISATIONAL