Organizational structure
[9] In the generic sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with Weber's ideal type bureaucracy.
Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity theory and organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can be used to engender organizational adaptations.
Other scholars such as Jan Rivkin and Sigglekow,[11] and Nelson Repenning[12] revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.
On the other hand, the most typical problem with a functional organizational structure is that communication within the company can be rather rigid, making the organization slow and inflexible.
Communication in organizations with functional organizational structures can be rigid because of the standardized ways of operation and the high degree of formalization.
Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional structure, which makes producing a limited number of products or services efficient and predictable.
Moreover, efficiency can further be realized as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and distributed quickly and at low cost.
The occurrence of infighting among units may cause delays, reduced commitment due to competing interests, and wasted time, making projects fall behind schedule.
[citation needed] Employees who are responsible for certain market services or types of products are placed in divisional structure in order to increase their flexibility.
[citation needed] Another advantage of using divisional structure is that it is more efficient in coordinating work between different divisions, and there is more flexibility to respond when there is a change in the market.
Also, there is usually an over-emphasis on divisional more than organizational goals which results in duplication of resources and efforts like staff services, facilities, and personnel.
A matrix organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in order to take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and decentralized forms.
An additional disadvantage of the matrix structure is higher manager to worker ratio that results in conflicting loyalties of employees.
In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that through the forces of globalization, competition and more demanding customers, the structure of many companies has become flatter, less hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.
However, in rare cases, such as the examples of Valve, GitHub, Inc. and 37signals, the organization remains very flat as it grows, eschewing middle managers.
All of the aforementioned organizations operate in the field of technology, which may be significant, as software developers are highly skilled professionals, much like lawyers.
A network can be described as “long term purposeful arrangements among distinct but related for-profit organizations that allow those firms in them to gain or sustain competitive advantage”[26] where “communication between people of different ranks tends to resemble later consultation rather than vertical command”.
Participating agents are constrained by their specialization and role within the organization, but their influence varies with the development and dissolution of the projects and teams.
In essence, these types of network structures' managers spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external relations, usually by electronic means.
[30] The potential management opportunities offered by recent advances in complex networks theory have been demonstrated[31] including applications to product design and development,[32] and innovation problem in markets and industries.
[33] For these benefits to be realised, the network structure relies on trust through shared values and norms, actively avoiding hold-up problems and opportunism risks.
However, the potential disadvantages for enterprises adopting the networked organizational structure include unreasonable design, insufficient supervision and poor linkage ability.
[35] If the different relations required for the network structure contrast too greatly it may lead to confusion, delays, and unnecessary increases in complexity.
Due to the network structure relying on many different individuals or teams working together independently, effective supervision is needed to avoid shirking or free riding.
Similarly, some individuals and teams coordinate poorly, resulting in communication breakdowns and misunderstanding, which only hinders the progression of tasks.
Although none sell in huge numbers, there are so many niche products that collectively they make a significant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful.
[39] The firm of the 21st century is not just a hierarchy which ensures maximum efficiency and profit; it is also the community where people belong to and grow together, where their affective and innovative needs are met.
al states the event analysis for systematic teamwork (EAST) method as one of the military command and control approach provides a means of describing emergent system-level features that result from the intricate interactions of system constituents (human and technical).
Such divergence decreases performance, when growing as a wrong organizational structure may hamper cooperation and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of resources and budgets.
[47] Operating core in such organisation is large, middle line insignificant, as the professionals perform complex work and have significant autonomy.
