Organizational Design Structures
Contact Email: derrickmaina100@gmail.com
When beginning a small firm, one may not pick the ideal organizational approach. You may wind up with an improvised structure or adopt a system similar to the company where you previously worked. If you had a boss who had a boss, you could believe your company needs a similar structure. In practice, you have a variety of organizing styles from which to select. The matrix and networking structures and their strengths and limitations will be discussed in this chapter.
The matrix organizational structure integrates functional specialization with divisional structure focus. This organization combines functional knowledge with divisional emphasis by forming permanent cross-functional teams (Lukinaite, 2017). Employees are allocated to two separate divisions in a matrix structure: an active group or project team. They are likewise overseen by two bosses, one from the team and the other from the functional group. Employee engagement is boosted by this structure, which also allows for cross-functional management and technical training. Among the possible benefits are:
· It improves problem-solving and collaboration.
· Increases Flexibility.
· Customer service could be improved.
· Accountability for performance.
· Strategic planning is improved.
The matrix structure, as one might expect, has certain drawbacks. Here are a few disadvantages of this structure:
· As operational supervisors and team leaders compete for authority, the two-boss system is prone to power conflicts.
· When accepting directions from several bosses, matrix members may experience task confusion.
· Teams may acquire strong team loyalties, causing them to lose sight of the organization’s wider aims.
· Adding leaders to a matrix structure, which is a critical component, might result in higher expenses.
Each operational function is split into divisions in the divisional system. These divides might be made based on objects or geographical locations. Each division is home to the resources needed to service the product line or geographic area in issue. These divisions enable managers to focus their resources better and achieve greater outcomes. The divisional structure also makes it easy to track performance. As a result, its system is adaptable and change-resistant. Because one division’s failure does not immediately affect the other divisions, the divisional structure is advantageous.
The divisional structure, however, has its limitations. Office politics, rather than sound strategic thinking, may affect a corporation’s opinions on resource allocation if it has rival divisions. As a result, one faction may attempt to destabilize another. Fragmentation can result from divisions, which can lead to incompatibility (Fairfeld, 2016). For example, the company’s corporate software department created the Social Connector in Microsoft Office Outlook 2010. However, they did not get around to integrating Microsoft SharePoint until months after Social Connector was linked to LinkedIn. Microsoft’s divisional structure, according to some analysts, is to blame for its products’ incompatibilities. Organizational structures are critical to all sizes and types of businesses. They form a hierarchy inside a company. An appropriate organizational structure defines each employee’s task and how it integrates into the larger system. The organizational structure, as stated, defines who does what to help the firm achieve its goals.
References
Fairfield, K. D. (2016). Understanding functional and divisional organizational structure: A classroom exercise. Management Teaching Review, 1(4), 242–251.
Lukinaitė, E., & Sondaitė, J. (2017). The mindset of employees working in a matrix organizational structure. Business: Theory and Practice, 18, 144–151.
