The three researchers Lawrence and Lorsch, Drazin and Van de Ven and Mintzberg agreed that the structure of an organisation is vital to the performance of the organisation. This would mean that the structure of the management team would certainly affect its performance. They also agree that two basic features of a structure of an organisation are its width as indicated by spans of control, and its height as indicated by the levels of decentralisation.
From the above observations, researchers put forward that the change in the organisational structure, through its shape in terms of width and height, would affect organisational performance, efficiency and effectiveness, and even vice versa.
Theoretically, researchers and theorists presented two extremes for possible models of structures. They are the organic structure and mechanistic structure. The model of an organic structure would be a flat and cross-functional team, with low formalisation, possessing comprehensive information and relying on participative decision-making. The model of mechanistic structure would be the opposite and would be characterised by extensive departmentalisation, high formalisation, limited information and centralisation - (Robbins, 1996). Therefore the organic model of structure would have the maximum width (span) but the minimum height (level), while the mechanistic model or structure would have the reverse, minimum width and maximum height.
Even though applied research on organisational structures has continued in most industries, the main barrier is attributed to the highly diverse characteristics of most
business projects and high uncertainties. These factors made it very difficult to establish a convincing structural model, which will be a sign of all diversities and uncertainties.
Even though existing structural and contingency theories on organisations indicate that there is no ideal firm structure suitable for all organisations, the question is which structure is appropriate for different size organizations? Large organisations will need a wide span of control to manage with the number of activities and a small number of levels to deal with the complexities therefore large organisations look as if they need organic structures. Whereas the mechanistic structure would be more appropriate for smaller organisations.
Successful structures sustain success of an organisations vision, mission and goals. A successful structure assists employees in “getting the job done”, helping them achieving goals set. Depending on the structure or type of structure will have an effect on the level of teamwork within an organisation. Well-formed organisational structures will deal better with external factors effecting the organisation such as governments etc. Changes in the external environment will be dealt with and adjusted in a much more efficient way if a good structure is in place. In fast changing environments where for example technology is changing quickly, the structure of the organisation should help the firm to identify opportunities and threats and therefore change. In a steady environment a successfully structured organisation should be able to take advantage by identifying new opportunities and therefore becoming more efficient overall. However no matter how solid the structure organisations are not always efficient and effective at the same time due to constantly changing environments and therefore for a good structure to be successful and for an organisation to be efficient and effective then a stable environment needs to be present.
A solid organisational structure will make a firm effective when it supports the organisations main activity. Therefore if the organisations main activity is obvious (e.g. Starbucks producing coffee) then a mechanistic structure can be used and therefore using this opportunity to be efficient. However if the main activity is less obvious then an organic structure should be taken on in order to support the effectiveness and innovation of the organisation.
Organisational structures are one of the most important factors in organising communication within a firm however whatever structure preferred there will always be room for conflict within communications. A way of solving this in the short run would be to introduce formal and informal mechanisms e.g. meetings, rewards, new rules, parties, lunches etc. The aim here is to get rid off factors, which get in the way of employees “getting the job done” and therefore assisting the organisation in becoming more effective.
There is and never will be a perfect structure for any organisation. All structures have their own strengths and weaknesses. When there is a problem of any kind within an organisation, it can be solved by changing the structure, however by doing this creates
other problems in other areas of the organisation and therefore firms are constantly changing there structures in the search for their “perfect structure” and in the long run becoming less efficient and effective. This essay shows that the structure of an organisation tends to be more organic the bigger the project of an organisation but not in terms of duration of the project. It also shows that for an organisation to be more effective it needs to react to change in its external environment by changing the structure in order to adjust to this change but as shown its not always the answer as it will cause new problems in different areas. Therefore the structure of an organisation has a huge impact on its effectiveness but depending on the type of structure used by the organisation and how this structure is managed depends on the effect it will have overall on its efficiency and effectiveness.
References:
- Drazin and Van de Ven
- Lawrence and Lorsch - Organization and Environment
- Mintzberg H - Mintzberg on Management - Inside our strange world of organizations.
- Brooks & Weatherston – The business environment
