Structure of an Organization Essay Example for Free

Structure of an Organization EssayOrganization organize refers to the method which the boldness utilizes to cover its workers and jobs across the presidency so that the tasks of the governing body give notice be acted and the goals of the organization be achieved. Therefore, there exists a number of much(prenominal) structures e.g. divisional, multidivisional, matrix or practicable structure. This paper evaluates the usefulness of functional and multidivisional structures. Gareth J angiotensin converting enzymes (2007) defined the organizational structure as the total number of ways whereby the workforce of the organization is distributed into different tasks and their coordination hence is accomplished among such tasks. Adner Levinthal (2001) observed that the way in which organization structure evolves is as a result of the prisonbreak in competition from variety in product to mental institution in process. This pitch, as the market for the products or service of the firm gains, causes the structure of the firm to grow as fountainhead and may therefore go game from functional to multidivisional.Utterback Abernathy (1975) observed that after an organization is formed it argue with some other organizations in the market on the earth of its differentiation system. They start off on the basis of product differentiation and as they grow further, they change their focus from product al iodin to cost differentiation strategy as well as economies of scale. This leads them to invest more in the manufacturing process and other processes to make their product stand out as a specialized one. Tushman Anderson (1986) observed that this process may not be uniform every time. well-nigh technological or technical discontinuity might cause this process to halt and and then start it entirely over again. They further observed that some companies may besides focus on process innovation to stand out against competitors e.g. Toyota. However, other companies might like to continue on the basis of differentiation strategy e.g. BMW.Therefore, the lifecycle exemplar represents a significant framework for organizations to devise their strategies and the processes they need to focus on in miscellaneous competitive environments (Oster, 1994 Porter, 1980) Utterback Abernathy (1975) also defined the ways whereby the evolution process of the organization shapes upthe strategies of the firms. Gort Klepper (1982) gave effect to lifecycle baffle of industries by employing microeconomics supply side rationales as well as evolutionary economics. They nevertheless derived the analogous results. They in addition observed that organizations evolved first on the basis of product differentiation and on the basis of functional model and gradu every last(predicate)y shifted towards the increase in the number of firms under their security. When they reach at the peak they suffer a number of firms under their umbrella which require for a mo re in-depth man shape upment causing them to shift towards divisional charge.This percentage point is called the maturity stage of the organization. This is the stage when the firm is stable from low level to the top (Utterback Suarez, 1993). Lifecycle theories all agree that organizations start on the basis of competitive strategies and as they evolve their structure experiences change. The early stage of any organization witnesses product innovation. The organizations usually focus on bringing innovation in a product that they launch in the market to distinguish it from the rest. The product is designed as per the latest require of the consumer but existing needs are also satisfied by the product. Utterback Abernathy, 1975 They then gave the examples of the product innovation in market by organizations i.e. the new products which were launched in market to compete with existing products on the basis of innovation and meeting the latest needs of the consumers e.g. AC systems w ere introduced to compete with DC systems and internal combustion engines were introduced to compete with travel engines.Utterback Abernathy (1978) observed that in the initial stages when the product is being launched by the new organization, that organization is usually of small structure and the aim of such organization is to respond in a fast paced elbow room to the demands of the clients. However, when the firms get to the stage of maturity, they focus on the improvement of the process along with that of the product. They then involve the meshing of latest technology and produce a dominant product e.g. AC systems came up as a dominant product compared to DC systems and internal combustion engines came up as dominant products as compared to steam engines. This transition from product innovation to innovation in process along with the product causes most of the organizations to change their structures so that new capabilities can be acquired by them. Talha (2005) described fu nctional structure of theorganization as the one which involves the commonwealth being grouped together in a tight group to perform same activities or utilize same technologies and in the same department.This is therefore usually the structure of smaller organizations. This structure has its own weaknesses and strengths. Jones (2007) observed that functional structure represents that design of the organizational structure whereby the people touch possess common expertise, skills and resources. The aim of organizations structured in this manner is to enhance their effectiveness so that their goals can be achieved by them. Jones (2007) said that the main advantage of this type of structure is that people work about together so they work in a team like manner and have the fortune to learn from each other. They tend to be more specialized over time as well as productive. Since they possess same expertise and skills therefore they can also supervise each other conveniently. This en hances the effectiveness of the organization. Brews (2004) observed that functional structures first started to appear in 20th century when the industrial age started to emerge.The main concern for the management in that age was the efficiency of the organizations. The functional structure involved fewerer managers which were at top while at bottom there were people. These people were organized as per the action at law they used to perform. Authority was descended onto from top to bottom. However, despite the advantages enunciated above, there were also problems related to the functional structure. These were mostly two fold i.e. they involved communication and obligate problems. With the growth of the organizations and with the growth in its units and people, it became difficult to communicate since people and units became distant from each other in the same organization and it became difficult to measure the capability of the groups with few managers. It also gave deepen to location problem i.e. it became difficult to locate every unit at one place while on the other hand if they were located at different locations it again gave rise to communication problems.(Jones, 2007) The control problem related to the management of wider number of people and units within the organization. It became difficult to control a large number of people possessing different skills as per the needs of the organization by same little number of managers. It also became difficult to gauge the problems and demands of the customers as the organizations grew as managers were busy in conclusion ways to coordinate withwidespread units/people while having little time to pay heed to customer queries, etc. Therefore, as organizations grew they started to get divided in various divisions with each division having its own management system. Each division then could have its own functional management system. This is what is referred to as multidivisional structure. (Jones, 2007) Such mu ltidivisional structures arose callable to different types of people working in the same organization, having had the need to establish different units in the organization to meet customer demands and develop innovative products, increased integration and increased vertical differentiation.In such instances organizations usually gave effect to multi divisional structure to meet the management needs of the organization. The focus of the multi divisional structure is to create small divisions within the organization with each division having its own management. Robbins (2009) observed that in multi divisional structures, each unit of the organization usually has its own management which is structured on a functional pattern. He believed that multidivisional structure is viable for those organizations whereby the same product requires different parts to be assembled to form one product and that such product is sold in various markets. Jones (2007) said that at the heart of the multi d ivisional structure is the corporate headquarter which is entrusted with overseeing the managers of each division of the organization.A number of Fortune 500 companies e.g. Nestle, General Motors, Pepsi Co and Coca Cola have multi divisional structures. Dessler (2004) observed that the main feature of the multi divisional structure is that the organization is departmentalized. He said when an organization grows successfully and a number of other brands also comes under its auspices e.g. as there are a number of brands acquired by Coca Cola over time, then it has to maintain different units for different purposes. For example, the unit entrusted with the responsibility to find marketing channels in regular army may lack the competency to find marketing channels in Europe or mainland China in which instance it would be a separate unit having such responsibilities. Each region would thus have its own unit but of the same organization and each unit may have its own management structure as well.Ireland (et al. 2011) observed that functional structure is relevant and appropriate for smaller organizations and for those organizations which have just begun their operations. They gave example of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that the store startedoff with functional structure in the beginning and progressed further. Moreover, Ireland (et al. 2011) also argued that one cannot apply the same structure to each organization. It is the circumstances of each company and organization which consecrate the need for the relevant structure. Thus, organizational structure represents the fashion in which organization organizes itself from top to bottom. It may be functional in the starting when the organization has just begun its operation while it may be multidivisional when the organization is huge in terms of its operations, products and services such as Fortune 500 companies.BibliographyAdner Levinthal (2001) Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution implications for product and p rocess innovation. Management Science 47 611-628. Brews (2004) Exploring the Structural Effects of Internetworking. strategic Management Journal, 25(5), 429452 Dessler (2004) Management Principles and Practices for Tomorrows Leaders. USA Pearson Education Gort Klepper (1982) Time Paths in the Diffusion of ingathering Innovations, Economic Journal 92(3) (1982), 630-653 Ireland (et al. 2011) The Management of Strategy Concepts and Cases. USACANADA South-Western Jones (2007) Organizational theory, design, and change (6th Ed) Prentice Hall Oster (1994) Modern belligerent Analysis. Oxford University Press New York. Porter (1980) Competitive Advantage. Free Press New York.Talha (2005) Organizational structure. Massachusetts, Massachusetts shew of Technology. Tushman Anderson (1986) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs a cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 604-633 Utterback Abernathy (1975) A dynamic model of process and product i nnovation. Omega 3639-656. Utterback Suarez (1993) Innovation, competition, and industry structure. Research form _or_ system of government 221-21