Geographical and functional organizational structures
Under functional organization, the business is structured in terms of functional areas rather than product lines. The clusters concentrate on related proficiency within separate units. It is most appropriate when producing a standardized product and for organizations with sole or overriding core product since every subunit is exceptionally proficient at a particular segment of the production process (Mishra, et.al, 1995). It is the organizational structure adopted by most automobile companies like Toyota. They are economically resourceful despite the fact that they lack flexibility (Robbins & Judge, 2006).
Functional structure is widely used since it is the cheapest and simplest amongst the other seven alternatives. This structure group’s responsibilities and activities by means of organization function like production, computer information systems, research and development, marketing, operations and finance or accounting. For instance, a university will structure its processes by key functions such as academic affairs, dean of students or student services, accounting, estates and maintenance, athletics and alumni associations. In addition to being simple and economical, it also encourages labour specialization, efficiency, reduces the requirements for a sophisticated control structure, and enables quick decision-making. However, it is limited due to answerability to the top, curtails career progress opportunities, and characterized by little employee motivation, line or personnel differences, poor designation of power, and insufficient plan for products as well as markets (Mishra, et.al, 1995).
Geographic organizational structure is usually found in organizations that have operations extending over a wide region that include both national and international offices. Each division or region has its distinct internal structure along with management strata, which permit them to operate as a pseudo-independent function. It allows organizations to utilize local, knowledgeable persons to manage the company’s functions. It is mostly significant for international locations that need assistance in transitioning their businesses to particular worldwide markets. Geographical structure does not allow companies to have centralized decision-making (Rousseau, 1990).
‘Power’ and ‘task’ cultures
A power culture is an organizational culture usually found in small companies and organizations that are founded by individuals or entrepreneurial and sole proprietors organizations. In this, culture control is the fundamental aspect and it is dependent on a central “power source” which is the foundation of the business. Additionally, this power extends to the rest of the organization through a spider web (Thayer, 2001, p.34). For instance, the Virgin group is centred on Richard Branson, its founder. Organizations based on power culture tend to rely on empathy and trust to ensure efficiency whereas they use personal conversation and telepathy meant for communication. People at the centre aim at selecting the right people who have similar lines of thinking as themselves and let them work on the business functions. Usually there are few bureaucracies, rules as well as procedures. Therefore, control is executed from the centre majorly by choice of key persons. It is therefore a form of political organization whose decisions are much influenced by the outcome of influence instead of the mainstream entirely logical or technical grounds. It enables the organization to react quickly to threats around the business as fewer consultations are involved. However, it can lead to problems because of lack of consultations since the staff may feel undervalued or under-motivated (Thayer, 2001, p.35).
A task culture on the other hand is used to describe a team-based system to achieve a given task. They are more popular in the present modern business world where a corporation will come up with certain ‘project teams” to accomplish a job to date. A task culture evidently offers a number of benefits. Staffs feel inspired since they are given power to make decision in their team. For instance, NASA have organised component of their culture around a similar concept by designing teams to direct a mission. The management achieves this by initially establishing or finding the problem. Then, suitable resources are prearranged to resolve the problem and wait for the outcome. In task culture, performance is evaluated through the results or problems resolved.
How the relationship between the organization structure & culture adopted by an organization can have an impact on the organization performance
Since 1980s, this has attracted interest of many researchers. For instance, several earlier researches have shown that countries with progressive practices in human resource managed performed far much better than those with less progressive HR practices are (Whitehead, 2001, p.90). Apparent participation and contribution of an organization’s employees can be used to predict present as well as future financial performance of an organization. Culture can be premeditated as an essential aspect of the process of change furthermore; some specific cultural traits can be exploited as predictors of a business’ performance and efficiency (Denison & Mishra, 1995). Four main cultural qualities are characteristically considered including, involvement, consistency, adaptableness and mission. Involvement and consistency are mainly centred on the company’s inside composition along with mission whereas adaptability and mission emphasize their focus on the relationship involving the business and external environmental dynamics (Gagliardi, 1986, p. 134).
Organizational culture is made up of common beliefs as well as values instituted by the organization’s managers and afterward communicated and made operational through a range of techniques, eventually influencing employee perceptions, understanding and behaviours (Whitehead, 2001, p.92). For example, if the culture of an organization is driven towards excellent performance and effectiveness, it means that the culture is expected to be very strong especially in terms of competitive advantage. As such, Virgin Atlantic has a culture based on forward looking and hands off tactic by the founder. This culture allows Virgin’s employees to come up with forward looking suggestions and the executive allows the staff to go along with it with minimal interference or guidance, what they call “hands off”. This has enabled Virgin to groom high-end personnel who are behind its innovations.
Organization culture involves governance structure, norms and communication. The power structure of an organization influences performance and cooperation of employees and therefore its performance. Norms on the other hand, determine the day-to-day activities of an organization and thereby its effectiveness. Communication in every organization influences relationships and management as goals and expectations are passed to various players in the business. Generally, an organization with adept organizational culture is likely to have; increased mutual trust along with teamwork, less disagreement and further resourceful decision-making processes, a relaxed control system, an open communication, collective understanding and a good sense of identification (Majeed, et.al, 2010, p.112). There is an ultimate link connecting culture and effectiveness, making use of diverse standpoints and styles on top of developing tangible ways to ease organizational culture from divergences can provide evidence to be extremely valuable in capitalizing on organizational structure, actions and processes. The personal model of leaders is able to propel a powerful meaning to employees. Amplification of that example by means of education and training will assist others take up preferred conducts and values (Majeed, et.al, 2010, p.120).
Key factors that influence individual behaviour at work in an organization of your choice
One of the key factors that influence the behaviour of employees in an organization is the organization itself. The work patterns, the organization culture, communication processes, resources available, the philosophy as well as the standards of the organization and leadership structure or the leadership technique of directors and supervisors. Therefore, these factors should be put in consideration during the job design as they significantly influence individual as well as group behaviour. An organization culture that involves employees in decision-making or allocation of duties gives a sense of belonging and likely to have passionate staff with high self-esteem.
Another factor is the job that an individual is involved in. This can be looked at in terms of the nature of the duties, volume of work, the work environment, the meaningfulness, importance and the challenges of the job for the employees, the blueprint of presentations and controls, in addition to the function of procedures. Everyday jobs ought to be planned in reference to ergonomic principles in order to consider both human limitations along with strengths equally (McShane & Travaglione, 2003). This takes account of matching the work or post to both physical and mental potency and limits of individuals.
The individual aspect brings together their competence, skilfulness, individuality or persona, mind-set, as well as risk perception (Fred, 2001) Personal distinctiveness of an individual will include abilities, interests, attitude, values, prospects, and above all their capacity for the employment. Individual character has great influence on work behaviour in a complex approach. A number of characteristics for instance personality are fixed; while others like skilfulness and attitudes can be altered or improved. These characteristics shape how an individual views work and how the person fit with other co-workers. Therefore, organizations have to clearly examine the personality of an individual before hiring them for particular jobs.
Influence of biological and psychological factors does not only affect the health or safety of employees, but also their efficiency and productivity (McShane & Travaglione, 2003). They affect their concentration and ability to withstand pressure and work for long hours. Sometimes an employee may want to apply a huge percentage of their energy to accomplish a task more likely to cause them an injury and thus perform the job incompetently. They might also cause damage to the merchandise and tools. This might trigger negative attitudes towards work. Other jobs involve too high mental demands, for instance those relating to detecting faults under momentous time pressures mutually a health concern for the worker as well as a quality along with probably safety issue on the part of manufacture line, process as well as plant (Robbins, & Judge, 2006).
Autocratic and democratic leadership style
Autocratic leadership is a conventional leadership approach where the managers makes most or all decisions and have the power to control decision-making. Many people view this leadership as out-dated (Handy, 1995). It benefits the managers by first, it reduces stress because of increased control if they are assured of decisive noteworthy legal and individual responsibility over a project; it comforts them and reduces their anxiety since they have power over their outcome. Autocratic managers wield sufficient pressure to warrant a productive group amid improved working speed, which evades a slack. This is idyllic for inadequately motivated staff with little concern or attention in the value or speed of the job acted upon. It is good for one-off projects having rigid deadlines, or complex working environments where well-organized collaboration enhances success. It yields quick decision making since there are minimal consultations allowing quick response to alterations by the management (Pasa, 2000, p. 414).
Autocratic leadership is only viable in the short run. In the long term, it denies subordinates an opportunity to acquire experience, develop leadership abilities, de-skilling the workforce that could eventually lead to poor decisions and low productivity. It increases workload for managers as they work at full capacity leading long-term depression, stress and health issues while posing threats on the relationship with other colleagues at the expense of productive leadership (Penner, Midili, & Kegelmeyer, 1997, p. 112). The employees lose initiative as well as the confidence to make decisions independently (Pasa, 2000, p. 414).
On the other hand, democratic leadership is a management approach that encourages distribution of responsibility and the use of designation and constant consultation. It is characterized by consultation on every key issue or decision and managers who successfully delegate responsibilities to assistants and offer them complete control and liability over the tasks (Robbins, & Judge, 2006). In democracy, the manager receives feedback on the outcome of projects and the job setting and pushes others to turn into leaders in addition to being part of leadership and development. Democratic leaders promote creative thinking by allowing free flow of ideas with positive business environment. It also lessens office politics or frictions between employees since it lets the staffs to utilize their ideas and above all gain recognition for them, which reduce tension between employees and managers (Majeed, et.al, 2010, p.116). It reduces employee turnover since they feel empowered by leadership development. This low employee turnover has numerous benefits for the organization.
Autocratic leadership involves lengthy and monotonous decisions in decision-making that slows down decisions, which can lead to hazards or missed opportunities. There is a danger of artificial participation where managers hide behind a democratic style to gain credit in the sight of the subordinates (Majeed, et.al, 2010, p.114). It is mostly effective in manufacturing industries for ideas on leaner processes and increased efficiency or in professional organizations with emphasis on training, expert and leadership progress and quality job execution. For example, it has been noted that the Big Four have managed to create leadership mechanisms, which are efficient. Non-profit organizations utilize the creative energies brought together by the staff to produce cost-cutting procedures or fund raising thoughts. Creative industries like television and advertising capitalize on ideas flowing freely from democratic style (Doconinck, 2003, p. 30).
The impact of different leadership styles on employee motivation during periods of change
During periods of change, autocratic leadership deepens the demotivation of the employees, as decisions made during this period are not well understood by the staff. They do not understand and have to sit there as spectators waiting for the next changes (Burnes, 2004). This demoralizes their productivity efforts. This leadership is only appropriate in introducing new employees who learn from the leader who is deemed competent and an excellent coach. Therefore, the new leaner is motivated to acquire new skills. The only motivation available for employees is in form of financial incentives since the employees do not feel valued and their leadership abilities are not even invested in (Majeed, et.al, 2010, p.118).
Democratic leadership style motivates the employees to be a part of a new and even more dynamic team or group. They are more determined to highlight their new set of ideas for the business and be a part of the decision making process. They are aware of the changes and the relevant information as pertains to that subject. Key employees are likely to stay in a democratic leadership style, as they feel appreciated and as part of the organization without even having to throw a lot of money, incentives and rewards to make them stay. Money rewards only motivate employees in the short run so there are other aspects that should be considered (Wren, 1994). There other motivations in this leadership style, for instance future investment in leadership skills, being part of decision-making group, ideas being considered, consultation and independence.
A comparison of the scientific management approach and the contingency management approach evaluates their use in your chosen organization
The contingency management approach is footed on the thought that there exist no single excellent technique to direct and to be efficient in the management functions of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling; and that they have to be customized to the certain conditions faced by a business. Managers are always torn between different forms of management. Contingency management approach which is also referred to as the situational approach, asserts that there is no general response to such dilemmas as organizations, individuals, and circumstances differ and change after a while. As such, the best approach relies on the various critical environmental factors as well as the internal incidents.
Some of the major contingency factors that influence the organizational efficiency include, size of the business, environmental changes, work technology and uncertainty. Steady environments propose mechanistic organizations that highlight centralization, formalization, homogeny, and specialty to attain effectiveness and reliability. Certainty along with predictability allows the application of policies, regulations, and actions to steer decision-making designed for regular responsibilities and problems. Unstable environments recommend organic arrangements, which accentuate decentralization to realize elasticity and adaptability. Woodward (1965), advocates that organizational elements working in conflicting environments build up different inside unit individuality, and thus the larger the internal divergence, the larger the need for harmonization amid units. For instance, financially thriving manufacturing businesses with differing work technologies for instance, small or unit batch or mass production differ in the quantity of management ranks, period of management, also the extent of employee specialization.
The size of an organization is yet another main contingency variable. Small establishments are informal whereas larger organizations are more formalized. A business owner tends to be autocratic by controlling directly, however large organizations have indirect control. Big organizations need specialized staff, divisions, and professions for a divisional structure. Other contingency variables to be considered include the employees, globalization, service, and diversity. For instance, organizations in the U.S must be in conformity with state, federal, and local legal requirements. Multinational corporations have wider adaptation mechanism in terms of culture, preferences, values, and expectations compared with national organizations. Leadership type, communication needs, financial resources, and skills are important contingency factors.
Scientific management on the other hand gives scientific basis of resolving problems and making decisions. It was meant to advance manufacturing productivity using more efficient of material and human capital. Its proponents were Frederick W. Taylor, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Henry Gantt, and Harrington Emerson. Taylor maintained that management must change and that conclusions rooted in rules of thumb be substituted with specific measures developed from careful individual scrutiny. This involves developing a science for all rudiments of a worker’s work, Job specialization, proper selection, coaching, and improvement of employees, planning and scheduling, Standards of methods and time limits and Wage incentives as an fundamental element of every job. These proponents by Taylor stimulated other proponents to contribute. This approach is very rigid for modern businesses.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs motivation theory
Maslow developed a hierarchy of needs to explain the issues behind human motivation. This is a broad concept summarized in the diagram below.
Maslow’s concept of self-actualization is the most appropriate in explaining management of organizations. It relates openly to the contemporary challenges and prospect for employers and organizations in an attempt to offer real implication, purpose along with factual individual development meant for their workforce for life besides work (Natalie, 2012). He saw the fact that workers have basic human needs moreover a right to struggle for self-actualisation, just as the business directors and holders do.
The successful businesses and managers are those who legitimately mind about, appreciate, encourage, and facilitate their staff personal development towards self-actualisation that is outside conventional job-related training and growth and outside the conventional X-Theory autocracy still evident in modern management (Gawel, 1997). Efficient modern organizations are ultimately discovering that sustainable achievement is based on a solemn and empathetic dedication to helping individuals recognize, chase, and reach their individual unique potential. As persons grow as people, they routinely happen to more efficient and priceless as employees. Although Maslow’s Theory has had critics, still it holds a lot of relevance. It assists the managers to appreciate the behaviour of their employees and offer the accurate financial as well as non-financial motivation to employees. It helps to raise the efficiency, output, and profitability of the business.
Herzberg theory of hygiene factors
“Herzberg developed a two-dimensional model of dynamics in 1959 to explain factors affecting employee’s mind-set on work” (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). “Such aspects like company policy, management, interpersonal relationships, work environment, and remuneration are more of hygiene factors than motivators are” (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). According to Herzberg, lack of hygiene factors can generate job dissatisfaction, although their existence does not inspire or build satisfaction. In contrast, motivators are rudiments that deepened an individual’s job. He came up with five factors for determining job satisfaction “achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement” (Natalie, 2012).
The motivators are connected with durable constructive outcomes in job performance whereas the hygiene factors only generated short-term adjustments in job mind-sets or performance, which rapidly retreated to its earlier level. Satisfiers explain an individual’s relationship with what they do while, dissatisfiers involve a person’s connection to the situation or job environment (Gawel, 1997).
Herzberg identified factors for satisfaction as the job, recognition, achievement, advancement, growth, advancement, and responsibility, while on the other hand factors for dissatisfaction comprised salary, status, security, company policies and so on. However, remedying dissatisfaction may not generate satisfaction. For instance, giving someone a promotion in a hostile environment or a healthy work environment without the satisfaction will not yield required results (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). To relate Herzberg’s theory, a business should implement a two-stage course to motivate employees. First, by getting rid of the dissatisfactions facing them and, secondly, to assist the workers acquire satisfaction.
Differences between ‘groups’ and ‘teams’
In business the term team and group are mostly used interchangeably, however there are subtle differences between the two. A group in a work environment typically involves three or more employees who distinguish themselves like a distinctive unit or subdivision, but who in fact work autonomously of one another to attain their organizational targets (Hulbert & Pitt, 1996, p.50). For example, in an organization with a customer services group, all members except one may deal with local clients or another member on regional customers while the remainder may support the other individuals. It is by no doubt that, groups have the ability to initiate and keep long-lasting goals and responsibilities.
A team includes three or more employees possibly from diverse departments in a business, but they join forces over time toward realizing various set objective, goal, or task (Pervaiz & Rafiq, 2002, p.174). For instance, before creation of a new product, a business may systematize a team collected of persons from all departments to judge all features of the prospective product to shun pricey surprises later. Amid a team, persons identify the capability and talents of others desirable to pull off the team’s goal. Furthermore, teams are created for temporary tasks with a clear-cut goal, target, or product in mind. A team is difficult to form than a group since its success is influenced by functional interpersonal dynamic. For example, a team in an organization may include an accountant, a business executive, a secretary, a sales representative, and not from same department. However, there is no room for conflicts in teams.
Factors that contributed to, and/or hindered the team’s performance and a discussion on how the use of technology influenced the team’s success
Our team was successful in achieving the targets set, however we encountered a number of challenges. First, we came up with team building strategies to ensure that we maintained cohesion and give every team member a sense of identity. Selecting team members involved careful examination since this determined team long in the end (Ingham, 2007, p. 63). However, various differences in terms of personality and interests, which posed a challenge in decision-making, however we were prepared for these challenges. We therefore instituted measures to ensure that all members were committed to the team’s shared beliefs. A source of strength in our team was the ability to identify different individuals and used this to achieve set targets. Technology facilitated effective communication within the group. For members who could not be available for meetings could still contribute through the internet. Therefore, technology formed a very important component of group dynamics.
Technology had a great impact on behaviour change. This can be attributed to the fact that technology formed a very important component of group dynamics. Emails, bulletin boards, moreover an information pool that pave way for hidden communications. Technology formed a better basis for monitoring even in the physical absence of team leader or other group members. It also enhanced team cohesion through increased contacts. It made it easier to achieve our targets through various computer programs.
Burnes, B 2004, Managing change a strategic approach to organizational dynamics, Prentice Hall, Harlow.
Doconinck, J 2003, “The Impact Of A Corporate Code Of Ethics And Organizational Justice On Sales Managers’ Ethical Judgments And Reaction To Unethical Behaviour”, Marketing Management Journal, vol.13 no.1, pp.23-31.
Fred, L 2001, Organizational behaviour, McGraw Hill, Boston.
Gagliardi, P 1986, The Creation and Change of Organization Cultures: A Conceptual Framework Organization Studies, Lonely Planet, London.
Gawel, E. (1997). Herzberg’s Theory of Motivation and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Web.
Handy, C 1995, Gods of Management: The Changing Work of Organizations, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B 1959, The Motivation to Work, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Hulbert, J & Pitt, L 1996, “Exit left centre stage? The future of functional marketing”, European Management Journal, vol.14 no.1, pp.47-60.
Ingham, J 2007, Best People Management Practices, Strategic Human Capital Management, Duke University Press, Durham.
Majeed, K., Bhatti, M., Nemati, A., Rehman, I., & Rizwan, A 2010, “Can Cultural Change with Different Leadership Styles Enhance the Organizational Performance?”, Research Journal of Internatıonal Studıes, vol.17 no. 2, pp.102-133.
Maslow, A 1970, Motivation and Personality, Harper and Row, New York.
Natalie, G 2012, Elements of Leadership and Motivational Theory, Web.
McShane, S, & Travaglione, T, 2003, Organizational Behaviour on the Pacific Rim, McGraw Hill, Australia.
Mishra, K, Denison, D & Aniel, T 1995, “Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness”, Organization Science, vol.6 no.2, pp. 67-123.
Pasa, S 2000, “Leadership Influence In A High Power Distance And Collectivist Culture”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol.21 no.8, pp. 414-421.
Penner, L., Midili, R., & Kegelmeyer, J 1997, “Beyond Job Attitudes: A Personality And Social Psychology Perspective On The Causes Of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour”, Human Performance, vol.10 no.2, pp.111-130.
Pervaiz K. & Rafiq, M 2002, “Knowledge management, learning and internal marketing”, Internal Marketing, vol.16 no. 1, pp.173-211.
Robbins, P., & Judge, A 2006, Organizational Behaviour, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Rousseau, D 1990, Assessing Organizational Culture: The Case for Multiple Methods in Schneider, B. Organizational Climate and Culture Jossey-bass, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Thayer, P 2001, Greening the Corporation: Management Strategy and the Environmental Challenge, Earthscan, London.
Whitehead, P 2001, “Team Building And Culture Change: Well Trained And Committed Teams Can Roll Out Culture Change Management Programmes”, Journal Of Change Management, vol. 25 no.1, pp. 76-102.
Woodward, J 1965, Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, London.
Wren, D 1994, The Evolution of Management Thought, Wiley & Sons, New York.