This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
To make the function in an group in better way they are forming an organisation for their own purpose. The company standard and type and their scale or level helps them to develop a clear method for a new organisation structure. Even a middle range group companies can also effectively function using the functional structure. In this, we are going to see about three methods that used in organisation structure and they are
functional organisational structure,
multi-divisional organizational structure and
All these methods were clearly explained with a proper example in relation with proper companies and benefits, advantages and disadvantages in relation with their companies and organization.
Functional organizational structure
In Japan EIDEN is a most competitive and successive company, it is a discount shop for an electrical appliance. In most of the electrical appliance store they are giving more discounts and selling more electrical goods for cheapest price. Marketing section, finance, manufacture, sales and personnel are the basic and fundamental method of simple organizational structure and these are used if there are limited ranges in the products. In this kind of company the control will be in wide span and they also have their commands in a limited range. As it explained previously the products prices are so competitive there are so many rival companies are in the competition.
The catch-phrase of EIDEN is 'We will offer the cheapest price, so, please let us know, if you meet the cheaper price of the same products in the rivalry stores'. Hence the store supervisors and the director who look sales are always paying attention on the competitor companies' products and its prices. The supervisor and the sales directors have to look about the improvement and sales service should be noted accurately about the circumstance. . As a result of this, it will become difficult to achieve a long-term strategic decision, the trend of next generation, for instance. Besides, sometimes it is difficult to co-ordinate across the functions because each the specialist has little idea of the different sections. So, it would appear that relatively small or middle size companies are suited to this type of organization.
Pharmaceuticals, departmental store and supermarkets etc are some of the companies that using this type of organization are large firms. Accordance to products and the place the big company has different section and each section has different roles to have effective role in each department and their human resources. All the area in an company getting decentralizing and so the companies should concentrate on their own work on their specialised section.
Another big brewery and beverages company in Japan is ASAHI and this company had worked hard to win first place they formed several section and worked on it. In the last decade the company had lack in demands to fulfil their company needs and struggled a lot then they had restructured the whole content of their company structure, that was a new components that the company is trailing and even for their industries too. As a short term strategy the subordinate is also concentrating on marketing the product and also sales of the product other than the deliver product in off licence shop and supermarket shop. At last in 2000 the ASAHI finally won the first place by achieving all the needs in all the area of the company. However, there are also some disadvantages of the system of multi-divisional organization. The most obvious problem could be the conflict between divisions, such as contending for a skilled human resource and share of the budget. Although the top manager concentrates on a long-term strategy, they tend to take no notice of daily operations.
Depends upon the projects what they had make a skilled worker from one team was meant to work the other team or section. . The matrix structure will provide the avoidance of problems with the entrepreneurial and bureaucratic structures, because the team has to take responsibility of their own project. One client asks UK aerospace industry to build a plane for passenger in supersonic aircraft category. Other side one client ask for a plane for military use. The purpose and
An example of UK aerospace industry, one of their clients will ask for a supersonic aircraft for a passenger plane to be developed and manufactured. Another client will ask for a military plane. There is a big difference in terms of a manufacturing process and purpose. The Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) will set up to complete the two different project groups. Each project requires people with different skills in order to fulfill the projects. In this matrix management, the sales manager has two bosses, the sales director and the technical director, for instance. Through the project, the individual employees experience a further career and increase their motivation after achieving the success. As far as the weaknesses of matrix structure are concerned, a conflict might be occur between the project groups, such as fixing the blame on each other because it is unclear who is accountable to.
Thus, in order to improve the quality and development of companies, the system of organization structures are essential to achieve the customers' requirements. However, matrix management structure should be utilized, and moreover an innovative change of the structure needs to be carried out, if it wants to make serious improvement to their companies.
2.2 Organisation Culture:
Organisation culture can be defined as the collection of relatively uniform and enduring beliefs, values, customs, traditions and practices which are shared by an organisation's members and which are transmitted from one generation of employees to the next. One view in the field of organisation culture is the culture metaphor. A metaphor is a word or phrase applied to an object or action which it does not literally denote. Metaphor can be powerful means of communicating ideas and are in common use in many organisations. It asserts that culture is a mental state that has to be tolerated since it is incapable of being changed by management. It adopted a phenomenological standpoint and conceptualised culture as a 'process of enactment' - not as something that exists 'out there' separate from people, but which was actually manufactured by company employees as they interacted with one another on a daily basis within the workplace.2 In highlighting the symbolic significance of virtually every aspect of organisation life, the culture metaphor thus focuses attention on a human side of organisation that other metaphors ignore or gloss over. The culture metaphor opens the way to a reinterpretation of many traditional managerial concepts and processes. It also helps to reinterpret the nature and significance of organisation environment relations.
Culture of the organisation plays a key role in determining a structure that would suit. The organisation stance towards participation and risk-taking will have an impact on the decision pertaining to number of levels and delegation of authority. Congruence between culture and structure is important. Lack of congruence can result in mixed signals across the organisation. Organisational culture is based on differences in norms and shared practices which are learned in the workplace and are considered as valid within the boundaries of a particular organisation. Therefore the efficiency of an organization structure is determined by how well it fits into the culture in which it is set.
The environments affect the structures chosen by organizational decision-makers through their society's cultural expectations. Organisational structures are designed to insure survival through social legitimacy by reflecting the surrounding culture's values and beliefs (Birnbaum-More and Wong 1985). Different cultures give rise to different structures. Culture improves the way structure coordinates and motivates organisational resources to help an organisation achieve its goals, thus, culture affects organisation effectiveness because it improve the organisation work.
As globalisation quickening its pace, more and more organisations become increasingly interested in the markets outside their home countries' boundaries. To the organisation executives, opportunities overseas indicate vast, almost infinite profit. The invisible culture barrier plays a crucial role in determine the organisation's success in a foreign country. Therefore there are many variations in national social characteristics of organisation and management. Organization in different countries were often structured and behaved differently. These differences were most striking when they were detected in the subsidiary companies of the same multinational organisation, because they seemed to suggest that national cultural differences may help shape organisational design and behaviour at a local level.
National culture is based primarily on differences in values which are learned in early childhood from the family. These values are strong enduring beliefs which are unlikely to change throughout the person's life. Factors that contribute to the national cultural environment are language, political context, values/attributes, religion, legal context, education and social organisation according to Hofstede(1980) and Tayeb(1989). National culture plays an important role in shaping an organisation's culture. Management must recognise the national culture within which the organisation is embedded and evaluate its impact on the organisation. The impact of national culture can be reflected in a number of ways, ranging from the constraints imposed on organisations by the environment within which it must operate to the mentality and habits of organisational members. The organisational culture of a firm is likely to reflect the norms and values associated with the society of the 'mother' country. A home country's culture has influences on the management practices and organisational culture of overseas subsidiaries. Thus, firms of different country origins operating in a given context will have organisational cultures reflecting the parent company's home cultures. Distinct organisational cultures will be developed in these subsidiaries, with little influence from the host country's culture. The national culture within an organisation is physically situated. People all across different nations behave differently, and for different reasons, due to their religion. From one religion to another beliefs and values differ greatly, and they have enough of an impact on people that religion contributes greatly to the make-up of culture.
Organisations are complexes of individuals and coalitions with different and often competing values, interests and preferences. The power perspective has a great deal in common with the culture perspective. The goals and objectives of organisation are emerging through a process of negotiation and influence, and that organisations are composed of groups of coalitions and subcultures.
Power is a relationship between social actors in which one social actor, A, can get another social actor, B, to do something that B would not otherwise have done. For instance, the more power a manager has, the greater number of influencing strategies that they can use and the greater success they can get. Organisational members both gain and lose power depending on what they do or fail to do, and on the actions of those around them.
Power is unequally shared in high power distance cultures and more equally shared in low power distance cultures. High power distances, exhibited in hierarchical cultures, result in less disclosure and openness and a tendency for the 'rules' to only apply to the 'lower orders'. Low power distances, for example in project teams, invite openness and consensus as there is less respect for authority. Power Distance reflects the degree to which a culture believes how institutional and organizational power should be distributed and how the decisions of the power holders should be challenged or accepted. In other words, people in high power distance cultures are much more comfortable with a larger status differential than low power distance cultures.
A power culture has a single source of power from which rays of influence spread throughout the organisation. These rays are connected by functional and specialist strings which facilitate co-ordinate action. The structure of a power culture may thus be pictured as a web. The internal organisation of a power culture is highly dependent on trust, empathy and personal communication for its effectiveness. There are few rules and little need for bureaucratic procedures with control being exercised from the centre through the selection of key personnel and edict. Resource power and to a lesser extent charisma are the main bases for the exercise of authority here. For the most part individuals are encouraged to perform their tasks with few questions asked though important decisions are likely to be made as a result of political manoeuvring. The greatest strength of power cultures is their ability to react quickly but their success largely depends on the abilities of the person or people at the centre.
In conclusion, organisational culture exercises a potent form of control over the interaction of organisational members with each other and outsiders. By supplying people with a toolbox of values, norms, and rules that tell them how to behave, organisation culture is instrumental in determining how they interpret and react to a situation. Thus, an organisation's culture can be a source of competitive advantage.
2.3 The relationship between Culture and structure and management:
There is a clear relationship between the structure and the culture of the Mars' organisation.
Tall organisations tend to have a culture based on a 'them and us' attitude, which depends on where individuals stand in the hierarchy. There is likely to be a authoritarian culture. Mars have a tall organisational structure and also a tall hierarchal structure. The managing Director is at the top and below are seven departments. Each department is made up of a team. This means that an organisational chart shows the position of your company at a particular time- needs reviewing. It can show anomalies and efficiency- shows faults in fundamental structure. It also shows new employees and shows a broad outline of the company and where they fit in. It is also essential for the day to day planning
Flat organisations tend to be more democratic, with multi directional flows of communication between organisational members, there is more likely to be a team approach. Matrix structures are more democratic than tall organisations. In the matrix people will mix with people from more than one functional area, so there is less likely to be a situation where departments become defensive of their territories. The matrix involves process teams this creates bonds between its team members and development of ideas.
Hierarchical organisations are based on a top down approach which a main emphasis on communication. Centralised organisations are likely to lead a power based authoritarian structure. The centre of the organisation or team leaders will make or major dictions of the company. Distrust may be a major aspect from the centre of the organisation, people not involved or surrounded by the decision makers ill feel pushed out and unwelcome. An advantage of centralisation is the fact that the management team is aware of how much internal and external factors effect each individual department and the organisations general, meaning decisions can be made, based on what Mars needs as a whole.
Decentralised organisations are most likely to be based on democratic structures teamwork and empowerment.
Mars are not Delayering they are not laying people off when they want a flat organisational structure. This has not happened in Mars but this has happened in Nestle in 2002 who closed plants and made redundancies.