It can clearly be seen in the statement ‘ full of empty boxes and you could put anybody with any intelligence at all in any of those boxes…’ that ford were using a very flat organisational structure. There would be one manager and may subordinates which means that ford had a wide span of control. There would not be many levels of hierarchy achieved. This would be typical in this type of work. Self-control and autonomy would be required. There is a high degree of decentralisation i.e. lower levels getting higher level tasks with less space of conflicts. This type of organisational structure would be democratic, as the manager would give set tasks and deadlines but still delegating responsibility at the same time. This would be a more human approach as human relations would be good and management by objectives achieved. Whereas centralised organisations ‘ the ultimate power lies with one chief executive and broadens out towards the base of shop worker at the bottom’. The business would have power concentrated with a few people e.g. two or three managers giving all the decisions and setting all the tasks with no delegation given at all to lower levels.
The advantages of having a flat type of organisational structure would be that the manager would have to delegate (decentralise) to his or her staff because he or she will have less time for each of the employees so there would be greater authority between levels. This in turn would help employees develop their skills in problem solving and decision-making giving them motivation and enjoyment in the work they do. This would definitely improve quality and performance. This could lead to ‘managerial labour process whereby there is no sharp breaks between manager and workers. Also because fewer levels of hierarchy are needed, information can move quickly from employees to the manager. This would help the manager to make quick and informed decisions. This would help the company respond to their customers needs and requirements faster and better than their competitors. Therefore there would be less communication barriers. As the company would ‘give him a statement of functions, the relevant procedure manual’ the subordinates would be fairly experienced for the job that they are doing. Also delayering the hierarchy and widening span of control could in turn reduce managerial overheads for the business as a whole.
The disadvantages of having this type of approach is that there would be no chance for specialisation in certain departments as workers would be taking orders and sticking to their job roles. This means that their tasks and roles would be ambiguous therefore leading to demotivation and poor performance. The manager would have many pressures due to the wide span of control. This in turn could encourage laissez faire and there would be too much demand on the manager for co-ordinating. One major demotivating factor is that there would be reduced chances of workers getting promotion. Also workers will not know who the boss is as the manager will constantly be delegating to subordinates. This could in turn lead to team leaders emerging. This approach is not necessarily the right approach.
An alternative approach to organisational design would be the organic approach to organisational structure. ‘The distinctive feature of the organic system is the pervasiveness of the working organisation as an institution’ and that ‘the only way in which his job can be done is by his participating continually with others in the solution of problems which are real to the firm. (Burns and Stalker 1961). By doing this the organic structure would be able to adapt to uncertain environments. The firms that survive are the firms that can respond to new and unforeseen circumstances. This system is more informal and flexible with a lot of sharing of responsibility and lower ranked staff getting high level influence delegated to them. There could be less efficiency but uncertainties would be met in a constantly changing economic environment. Managers would have to make constant adjustments if the market changes, but would be able to make basic choices rather than structured ones to counteract different demands. Therefore the business would not be of any specific design or organisational type, more a philosophy of organising i.e. picking up elements of different models and bringing them all together.
The organic model would have strong informal networks, which would boost workers employer relationships thus boosting performance and quality of service. Also there would be unclear divisions of labour. This means that different individuals would carry out responsibilities and tasks even at high levels of the hierarchy. This would develop their skills to the best of their abilities and encourage job satisfaction. With this sort of model there would be a lot of verbal communication and delegated authority. Jobs would not be predefined, as there would be roles taken on by different ranks in the business. All these factors combined together would strengthen the business and provide the means to respond flexibly to changes in active and complex environments.
