Theory of Organizational structure

An organizational structure defines how activities such as task allocation, coordination, and supervision are directed toward the achievement of organizational aims. According to the Theory of Organizational structure, organizational structure affects organizational action and provides the foundation on which standard operating procedures and routines rest. It determines which individuals get to participate in which decision-making processes, and thus

Foundations of Organization Design: Coordination in Fives

Recall that structure involves two fundamental requirements—the division of labor into distinct tasks, and the achievement of coordination among these tasks. In Ms. Raku’s Ceramico, the division of labor—wedging, form-ing, tooling, glazing, firing—was dictated largely by the job to be done and the technical system available to do it. Coordination, however, proved to be

Foundations of Organization Design: The Organization in Five Parts

Organizations are structured to capture and direct systems of flows and to define interrelationships among different parts. These flows and interre- lationships are hardly linear in form, with one element following neatly after another. Yet words must take such a linear form. Hence, it sometimes becomes very difficult to describe the structuring of organizations

Foundations of Organization Design: The Functioning of the Organization

Here then we have our representation of the organization in five parts. As noted, we can and shall use this diagram in various ways. One way is to overlay the diagram with various types of flows to depict how the organi- zation functions, at least as has been characterized in the literature of management.

Designing individual Positions: Job Specialization in Organization

Jobs can be specialized in two dimensions. The first is “breadth” or “scope”—how many different tasks are contained in each and how broad or narrow is each of these tasks. At one extreme, the worker is a jack-of-all- trades, forever jumping from one broad task to another; at the other ex- treme, he focuses

Designing individual Positions: Behavior Formalization in Organization

A second parameter of organizational design, related to individual posi- tions, has, in the opinion of David Hickson (1966-67), been a virtual obses- sion of organization theorists. In fact, Hickson’s list of who has focused on this parameter reads like a veritable Who’s Who of writers in manage- ment—Taylor, Fayol, McGregor, Argyris, Simon, Crozier,

Designing individual Positions: Training and Indoctrination in Organization

The third aspect of position design entails the specifications of the require- ments for holding a position in the first place. In particular, the organiza- tion can specify what knowledge and skills jobholders must have and what norms they must exhibit. It can then establish recruiting and selection procedures to screen applicants in terms

Relating the Position Design Parameters in Organization

It has been evident throughout our discussion that specialization, formal- ization, and training and indoctrination are not completely independent design parameters. In essence, we have been describing two fundamen- tally different kinds of positions. One we have called unskilled: because the work is highly rationalized, it involves extensive specialization in both the horizontal and

Designing the Superstructure: Unit Grouping in Organization

The grouping of positions and units is not simply a convenience for the sake of creating an organigram, a handy way of keeping track of who works in the organization. Rather, grouping is a fundamental means, to coordinate work in the organization. Grouping can have at least four important effects: Perhaps most important, grouping

Designing the Superstructure: Unit Size in Organization

The second basic issue in the design of the superstructure concerns how large each unit or work group should be. How many positions should be contained in the first-level grouping, and how many units in each suc- cessively higher-order unit? This question of unit size can be rephrased in two important ways: How many

Fleshing Out the Superstructure: Planning and Control Systems in Organization

The purpose of a plan is to specify a desired output—a standard—at some future time. And the purpose of control is to assess whether or not that standard has been achieved. Thus, planning and control go together like the proverbial horse and carriage: There can be no control without prior planning, and plans lose

Fleshing Out the Superstructure: Liaison Devices in Organization

Often, neither direct supervision nor all three forms of standardization are sufficient to achieve the coordination an organization requires. In other words, important interdependencies remain after all the individual posi-tions have been designed, the superstructure built, and the planning and control systems set in place. The organization must then turn to mutual adjustment for

Some Conceptual Cuts at Centralization / Decentralization in Organization

So far, all this seems clear enough. But that is only because we have not yet looked inside that black box called decentralization. The fact is that no one word can possibly describe a phenomenon as complex as the distribution of power in the organization. Consider the following questions: Which is more centralized: a

Vertical Decentralization in Organization

Vertical decentralization is concerned with the delegation of decision-mak- ing power down the chain of authority, from the strategic apex into the middle line. The focus here is on formal power—to make choices and authorize them—as opposed to the informal power that arises from advis- ing and executing. Three design questions arise in vertical

Horizontal Decentralization in Organization

Now we turn to the question of horizontal decentralization—namely, to the shift of power from managers to nonmanagers (or, more exactly, from line managers to staff managers, analysts, support specialists, and opera- tors). An assumption in our discussion of vertical decentralization was that power—specifically formal power, or authority—rests in the line structure of the

Organizational Decentralization in Fives

Five distinct types of vertical and horizontal decentralization seem to emerge from our discussion. These can, in fact, be placed along a single continuum, from centralization in both dimensions at one end to decentral- ization in both at the other. There are shown in Figure 5-4, as distortions of our logo (where, it should

Fitting Design to Situation: Two Views of Organizational Fitting Design to Situation: Organizational Effectiveness

A number of researchers have studied the relation between structure and performance, typically by comparing the structures of high- and low-per- formance firms. Their tendency has been to attribute effectiveness to the fit between certain design parameters and some situational factor—for exam- ple, the size of the organization, the technical system it uses, or

Fitting Design to Situation: Technical System of Organization

It has been difficult up to this point to keep from discussing technology as a factor in organization design. Clearly, structure is tightly intertwined with it. But before considering how, we must make quite clear what we mean by the terms we shall use. Technology is a broad term that has been used—and abused—in

Fitting Design to Situation: Environment of Organization

We have so far discussed the influence on structure of factors intrinsic to the organization itself—its age, its size, and the technical system it uses in its operating core. But every organization also exists in a milieu to which it must respond when designing its structure. Now we consider situational factors associated with this

Fitting Design to Situation: Power in Organization

Organizations do not always adopt the structures called for by their imper- sonal conditions—their ages and sizes, the technical systems they use, the stability, complexity, diversity, and hostility of their environments. A number of power factors also enter into the design of structure, notably the presence of external control of the organization, the personal