Organization Structure and Behavior
Comparison and contrast of different organizational structures and culture
Different organizations adopt different structures, depending on the nature of their operations. Some of the structures adopted include hierarchical, functional, line-staff, divisional and the matrix. The culture of an organization describes their psychology, mind-sets and standards based on how the workforce interacts. These structures and customs are created to support a universal goal.
This structure takes a conical shape in order of authority. The leader sits at the summit of the pyramid, followed by juniors in downward authority. Besides, the majority populations of a hierarchical organization flock at the bottom of the pyramid.
An exceptionally sheer pyramid implies more superior leaders than junior employees. Communication in a hierarchical group is passed through overseers from the top of the pyramid.
The subordinates are protected as the command chains are visibly outlined. Divergences between staff are avoided as they receive instructions from specified authority. In design below, there are three vice presidents who handle the separate departments. It may be compared to the departmental structure where tasks are grouped per their specialty.
The prospect of being promoted motivates employees and their loyalty and productivity is increased. Decision making, compared to the functional structure, may be opinionated to the department, instead of serving the wide-ranging organization.
Functional or departmental structure
This structure assembles workers fulfilling same errands in one department, based on their specialization, for example, procurement or marketing department. All procurement workers will operate together, thus enhancing diffusion of ideas and sustenance of the overall managerial practice.
Supervision is effortless, since tasks are exclusive in each department, thus saves the company money because of the specialized financial levels (Droege, 2010). Marshalling specialized staff in a functional structure is easier contrasted to the other structures.
However, this structure faces departmental inconsistencies, which impede communication. Resolutions regarding performance and accountability become demanding. Coordination between the different departments is difficult compared to other organizational structures. There is centralization, thus presenting no opportunities for suppleness in maneuvers.
This structure cluster employees based on organizational divisions, for example, customer segment. The divisions are answerable for definite products, administered through allocated assets. There is a president who oversees the separate partitions having their own segments.
This structure can be clustered into product, environmental and market structures (Daft, 2009, p.100), indicated as X, Y, Z in the design. Product structure occurs when teams are clustered based on wares being fabricated. An institute will accordingly have four divisions if it manufactures four dissimilar commodities. Market structure assembles staffs based on the disparate markets of the organization; a conglomerate will have five divisions when supplying five markets. Geographical structure clusters staff depending on the organization’s localities. This habitually applies to cosmopolitan organizations, where offices are placed at disparate localities.
Unlike the functional structure, this technique is decentralized, hence allows adaptableness and faster feedback to environmental alterations. Further, the personnel are allowed to be innovative in their stratagem. Unfortunately, the structure may replicate efforts as assets will be billed to different partitions, for example, different warehouses. There is no diffusion of expertise between individuals in comparable professions as they will be functioning in divided divisions.
Matrix structure is a mass of two structures, for instance divisional and departmental structures (Daft, 2009, p.100). The workforce may have two managers, a functional, and product director. Organizations executing this stratagem profit from both structures.
Lamentably, it may be intricate to employ the pooled structures without proper organization. It is adopted by time-honored organizations that operate in a wider market. Employees under matrix structure are habitually open-minded, since they contain individuals from assorted surroundings.
Identification of an organisation, type of organisation, for which each structure(i.e. matrix and functional) would be appropriate
Matrix structure suits Ford Motors Company, due to profit-making reasons. They fabricate numerous products and offer wide-ranging services. Besides, the company is outsized and intricate, serving innumerable customers. The matrix eases the supervision practice.
Assembling workers using product structures makes it easy to assess product performances. A department would be conscientious for any failures in the overall process. Consequently, everyone will extend liability for their functions. Ford motors complete numerous services; therefore, dividing the company based on functions favors the group; product dividing eases the scrutinizing of company functions.
Espousing both functional and product advertising provides a fitting setting to work on the copious objectives within the precise duration. The process of exploring and acquiring information is eased. Accordingly, the company will promptly amplify its productivity since information can swiftly be adopted.
Functional structure is an apt model for edifying institutions. Students, teachers and other staffs can effortlessly harmonize if a functional structure is employed. Students raise their test concerns in exams branches and admittance done in the administration department.
Consequently, the body will function promptly and judiciously to meet objectives. Exceptional synchronization condenses disputes among departments. Consequently, workers develop an affirmative outlook about the institution and colleagues. Such attitude translates to competence and value, thus increased productivity.
Analysis of how the structure and culture adapted by an organization are related and influence the behavior of individuals employed by the organization
The structure and culture of a group assert the personality influence on the workforce and underlines their outlooks. The adapted culture determines how they react to environmental alterations. An apposite structure enables problems to be foreseen and solved by the pertinent department or hierarchical level. The cultural forms link the organization’s network and augments understanding among the workforce. Structural transformations manipulate customs of an organization.
The structure determines how errands are completed, while culture instructs how the organization is structured and the directorial measures taken in formulating policies. They both control how individuals counter duties and their relationship with customers. The personal, social and group objectives can thus be straightforwardly met. Thus they learn to construe experiences based on the authority administered.
Approaches to Management and Leadership
For two different organisations, analysis of how organizational theory underpins principles and practices of organizing and of management
Ford motors company
Their business structure is modified by altering market and economic situations experienced in the comprehensive market. The company merges uniqueness of divisional, functional, and horizontal structures (Daft, 2009, pp. 123). Apt customer service proved challenging at the inception of the organization, thus the horizontal structure was applied to gain a more efficient channel of reply to customers. The functions were divided into detached divisions, each with their own overseer.
In customer care, a functional structure was retained for fiscal and HR departments. These departments served the total division (Daft, 2009, pp. 123). Executive observances in the corporation have been satisfied by applying structural characteristics. A hybrid structure is preferred over individual realization of functional or divisional structures. The method emphasizes Ford’s practice, which capitalizes on pluses of each structure while eliminating limitations.
Under organizational hypotheses, conflicts are unavoidable; however, they can be contained. The company has stringent norms; punitive cases are overseen by the board of governors. Ford Motors remunerates its personnel passably thus preventing disputes.
Contingency conjecture elucidates how organizational structures are predisposed by size and technology. Management of a company adopts different structures and practices, due to expertise and surroundings. Microsoft’s administration structure is prejudiced by its size. It adopts a geographical structure, whereby management teams are grouped based on the company’s location, thus, there are different management teams.
Operational changes are obligatory to augment efficiency in the organizations. When adjusting processes, the management updates the workforce for better assimilation. The organizational structure habitually affects the quality of a product, hence the initiation of a divisional structure which guarantees specialty and sharing of ideas to produce better outputs.
Comparison of the different approaches to management and theories of organization used by these two chosen firms
Ford motors company
Different management teams run ford motors at diverse locations. For instance, North America region operates under a defined management team. Each region has a representative; it has vice presidents liable to duties within their regions. However, the company has been subjected to fundamental executive changes. Part of the Executive team was switched from UK to North America to diffuse valuable productivity.
The organization seeks to further the hierarchical structure evidenced by efforts to buttress the senior headship team and diminish its officer-level organizational structure. Titles are being changed (Dearborn, 2010), seeking to elucidate responsibilities and authority positions. This is aimed at sinking involvedness, and further streamlines domestic processes.
The cluster entails board members handling decisive business aspects. They choose the amount to remunerate Microsoft employees, including the CEO and workers. They decide on financial matters, for instance, in making acquisitions and mergers. Microsoft management team has been linked with anti-competitive tactics; however, it adopts the guidelines of fabricating all-embracing, quality products to progress competitiveness.
A shift towards focusing on results of processes, rather than their accomplishment is an established management system in the organization. This structure advances productivity and novelty in the workforce, as they use different methods to fabricate advanced commodities.
Identification of the different leadership styles adopted in these two chosen firms and evaluation of the effectiveness of these leadership styles
Ford Motors is subjected to diverse headship styles in administration. Ford upholds a democratic headship methodology in the group. He has outstanding headship qualities, like being an exceptional listener who ensures employee’s propositions are incepted. Democratic headship makes staff feel esteemed, regardless of standing in the company, thus stirring productivity from workers.
Leadership is significant in relating the culture of a group. To solve organizational arguments, the executive examines grounds of the problem, before sourcing from experienced colleagues. Listening to both professionals and staff are some headship approaches adopted in Ford.
Gates employed domineering and delegated style of managing and running his company. He extended his supervision style to hog the software market. Gates dislikes complaints, further contributing to his autocratic headship.
Functions in the conglomerate are defined, and the organizer is focused on keeping staff workforce engrossed and contented thus plummeting absolute longing for financial gains. In practice, Gates emphasizes on control, with regular configuration of groups to apprehend outlined goals and report data hierarchically. The leader directs managers, ensuring processes are comfortably done. Gates also employed the delegated headship style, where he recruited competent workforces while pressuring Microsoft’s HR department, to invest on searching for brilliant personnel.
Explanation of the different motivational theories and how they could be applied in practice within the workplace
To comprehend motivation, the manager must understand distinctiveness of human demeanor. Enthusiasm in the work place augments forethought in fulfillment of the organization’s objectives. Several motivational theories are developed, to originate valuable ways of increasing efficiency at work.
Douglas’ equity theory
Douglas linked a direct involvement of endeavor and incentive (Gilliland, Douglas & Skarlicki, 2001, p.63). Thus, more work dictates superior remuneration. He further explicated that efforts goes beyond working hours, while compensation goes beyond money. Far-fetched pay and incredible job condition do not automatically translate to motivation. He explained motivation as the balance between output and input, among employees.
This hypothesis can expansively be applied by institutions to inspire staff. Employers should balance the input of the workforce and the compensated amount. They should consider every aspect of input, when remunerating workers, be it sacrifices or working hours. This will unquestionably arouse employees to perform amazingly.
Fredrick Hertzberg’s theory
Hertzberg identified the factors that both encourage and thwart discontent of employees. He named the factors that motivate employees as motivators, explaining the term as factors that amplify competence and value of workers. Contrastingly, he referred “factors that prevent dissatisfaction,” as the ones that remove unhappiness got from a job. He noted that some of these factors overlap and may affect both enthusiasm and the exclusion of unhappiness.
This supposition can expansively be employed by employers to motivate their employees. For instance, in Medicaid organization, employers can learn how to differentiate these two factors i.e. the motivator and the ones that eliminate unhappiness. This will help them use appropriate strategies, to motivate their employees, which ultimately translates to effectiveness and efficiency.
The issues/problems that organizations may face when implementing motivation theory in practice, and how these issues may be overcome
In motivating employees, a reward augments productivity and improves discernment of the organization (Daft, 2009). Conversely, punishment may lead to resentment between the supervision and the workforce, which may decrease optimal routine. Balancing private and monetary satisfaction is tricky when trying to encourage workers. Allowing workers to channel their viewpoints builds their internal morale; unfortunately, coercing them may reduce domestic motivation. This may not be instantaneously noted, but less productivity would result if the workforce works fearfully.
Comprehending what inspire employees is challenging, as singular individuals may be motivated differently. Some are motivated monetarily while others necessitate apt working conditions. It is obligatory to ensure comfort of personnel in the organization and sanction them to comprehend their significance. This habitually increases their productivity without redundant demands for elevated pay.
There must be customary meetings between the supervision and staff to categorize their challenges and the factors which may advance their competence. Improving the management team is imperative, as processes function according to their resolutions. Superior administration practices can be better enhanced through developing apt motivational suppositions.
Working with others, teamwork, groups and group dynamics
Description of the nature of groups and group behavior within organizations
A group consists of people who work to finish a common intention (Parker, 2008, p.189). It may be effective or ineffective; Effective groups are viable, and complete their tasks in a timely manner. Contrastingly, ineffective groups do not complete their job within the specified limit. Temporary groups perform a specific task, differing from permanent groups which are effective over seasons. Two types of behaviors are associated with groups; required, and emergent behavior. Emergent demeanor often occurs as an extra characteristic, to the required behavior; whereas, required behaviors are often the behaviors expected to be exhibited by group members.
Group behavior determines the mind-set and flexibility that a cluster of individuals in a structure follow. These demeanors are demonstrated in both formal and informal groups formed within the organization. Formal groups include task forces while informal groups impose hobbies and widespread activities. Groups logically extend during shared actions, relations and opinions (Barnett, 2010), based on the classical theory. The social exchange theory advocates that these relations are charted with the aim of reciprocally benefiting through reliance and accountability.
The nature of the groups may be based on demography, ethnicity, or unions. Individuals thus obtain individuality and belonging to the organization. Participation in these groups sways employee behavior towards the supervision, and predisposes the work traits they widen. Expectations are thus imposed on the group members who ultimately may affect the wide-ranging culture of the organization. Groups achieve more efficiently than individuals when responsibilities require a diversity of skills and acquaintance. The plasticity experienced in groups, coupled by specialization of members in different sectors creates ease in achieving goals. The members can effortlessly induce each other and be more empowered to amplify productivity.
Investigate the factors that lead to effective teamwork and the influences that threaten success
Membership diversities, goals, machinery, group volume, and rewards affect teamwork. Efficient technology and limited membership diversity may pressure a team’s effectiveness. Contrastingly, inefficient technology and extreme membership diversities can contribute immensely to the team’s ineptness.
Valuable teamwork is practically about apt leadership. There must be an informed leader who has the proficiency and vision to create constructive working settings. This motivates and amplifies the obligation levels for team members. The leader must progress the self-esteem of the members for them to appreciate their value, thus reduce any resentment that may derail the quality of work. The leader must represent positivism, which would normally diffuse to the members.
Communication is imperative to ensure apt interaction and coordination. For effective teamwork, there must be apposite communication where members can express their feelings, plans and desires. Without this, the success of the group is threatened, as grudges between members may encumber shared efforts.
It is obligatory to have defined roles to further productivity. This enables team members to comprehend their responsibilities and augment their accountability. Furthermore, squabble-solving measures must be existing, and channels to expose any challenges and divergence expressed by members be established. A setting where members are not aware of their responsibilities may lead to replication of responsibilities, and laziness, as no member would be liable for any uncompleted work.
For an organization of your choice evaluate the impact that the use of technology has on team performance
Technology immeasurably contributes to remarkable performances of teams. This can be observed in the IBM management team, whereby equipment plays a principal character in their achievement. For instance, the use of communication machinery such as fax machines and advanced ICT provides superlative communication channels. Technologies thus allow the team to cooperate with the aim of effecting a task.
ICT facilitates the diffusion of precise information between divisions. This translates to effortless coordination and communication thus promoting fastness within a team. Also, limited time is wasted in coordination, and thus ample time to execute their objectives. This categorically leads to effectiveness and exactness in performance.
The group effectiveness of distributed and virtual teams depends on the competence of the communication channel. Technologies which provide more ordinary channels improve synchronization and effectiveness through increasing clarity levels, and lessening efforts applied in operations.
Technology charts new methods of exploring and information gathering. Virtual world conferences which are cost effective are effortlessly conducted. Changing circumstances in the surroundings can be straightforwardly monitored to guarantee augmentation in output (McCarthy, 2010).
Daft, R. 2009. Organization Theory and Design, Cengage Learning, Ohio, pp. 100-130.
Dearborn, M. 2010. Ford makes senior leadership changes: also moves to streamline executive ranks. Web.
Droege, S. 2010. organizational structure, Reference for business: encyclopedia of business, 2nd ed.
Gilliland, S Steiner D & Skarlicki, D. 2001. Theoretical and cultural perspectives on organizational justice, IAP, Charlotte, pp. 63-70.
McCarthy, V. 2010. IBM users share ‘agile BPM’ secrets at impact 2010, Integration. Web.
Manufacturing management. 2006. Operations, processes and decisions. Organizational structure, manufacturing management. Web.
Parker G. 2008. Team Players and Teamwork: New Strategies for Developing Successful Collaboration, John Wiley and Sons, California, pp. 189-207.