The Company Structure Commerce Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Organizations are a variant of clustered entities. An organization can be structured in many different ways and styles, depending on their objectives and ambiance.[clarification needed] The structure of an organization will determine the modes in which it operates and performs.

Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities for different functions and processes to different entities such as the branch, department, workgroup and individual. Individuals in an organizational structure are normally hired under time-limited work contracts or work orders, or under permanent employment contracts or program orders.

Matrix organisations are complex and are adopted by large global organisations simply because of the sheer breadth of their operations. Matrix structures can enable such organisations to achieve a measure of uniformity of practice.

Matrix organisations serve little purpose in small organizations where problems can be solved by crossing the corridor and having a word with a colleague.

Matrix structure is amongst the purest of organizational structures, a simple lattice emulating order and regularity demonstrated in nature.

Weak/Functional Matrix: A project manager with only limited authority is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the project. The functional managers maintain control over their resources and project areas.

Balanced/Functional Matrix: A project manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project manager and the functional managers. It brings the best aspects of functional and projectized organizations. However, this is the most difficult system to maintain as the sharing power is delicate proposition.

Strong/Project Matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and assign resources as needed.

Matrix organisations are useful for:

â- Enforcing corporate standards

Prevents disparate standards and working practices from being adopted. Ensures consistency and standards in

areas such as accounting, IT, health and safety, as well as areas such as bids, sales proposals, sales

presentations, etc.

â- Co-ordinating across distributed units

Essential for global corporations needing a measure of central co-ordination across geographically distributed

operations, e.g. with mobile teams, virtual teams dispersed all over the world, etc.

â- Serving Global Customers

Global reach together with consistency and quality can be achieved with matrix structures. This sets to increase

the value of the global brand. For example, a global customer may request that the sales training your organisation

delivered to its US office must be exactly reproduced for its salespeople in China.

Organization Culture

Organizational culture is an idea in the field of Organizational studies and management which describes the psychology, attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values (personal and cultural values) of an organization. It has been defined as "the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization

Four Basic Culture

Today executives selecting the most appropriate form of culture, consider four basic cultures:

Control Culture

A culture that is constantly in pursuit of operational excellence. It imposes a planning discipline and values the power and security gained from achieving planned outcomes. Indeed its strength is in executing plans efficiently and to high-quality over often large-scale operations.

Leadership in control cultures is a function of authority, and decision making is tied closely to title and role in the

organisational. Such organisations tend to be more hierarchical in structure.

Collaboration Culture

Places a high value on collaboration not just internally, but with its customers and partners. It emphasises the power

of teamwork. By collaboration it seeks to be closely in 'touch and in tune' with the customer and the market at large. HP-Compaq would consider itself to be in this class.

Leadership in a collaboration culture is role-based, not person or title-based, and authority is situational (dependent on the particular client engagement, project etc). The natural organisational structure of a collaboration culture is cross-functional teams aligned to market opportunities.

Competence Culture

A culture that is in pursuit of leadership (in products/services) at any cost. It cherishes achievement. Business realities (e.g. adherence to budget and time-scale, profit margins etc ) are often compromised in the pursuit of

achievement. Leadership is a function of demonstrable expertise and a proven ability to execute. Expertise is the basis of

legitimacy, not job title.

Cultivation culture:

Often associated with start-ups and entrepreneurial organisations in innovative organisations. Rewards the creative

individual, and recruits individuals for brilliance. Leadership is by charisma. Many of the Silicon Valley

entrepreneurs and founders of dot.coms are of this culture.

Like the collaboration culture, cultivation culture places people first - but as individuals rather than as teams.

Leadership can be as highly charismatic leaders who inspire and mobilise the troops, or as invisible administrators.

Which Cultures that Hilton choose to maintain ?? Why?

Hofstede's model of culture

The Dutch psychologist Hofstede (1980), carried out research involving 116,000 employees of IBM (the giant multinational) to understand differences between a number of business cultures. The findings are pertinent not only because of the scale of global business environment but also because of the emerging economic order and the expected influence of Asian culture. Hofstede concluded that there are five dimensions to the differences between

national cultures:

Low vs. high power distance - This dimension measures how much the less powerful members of institutions and organizations expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. In cultures with low power distance (e.g. Ireland, Austria, Australia, Denmark, New Zealand), people expect and accept power relations that are more consultative or democratic. People relate to one another more as equals regardless of formal positions. Subordinates are more comfortable with and demand the right to contribute to and critique the decisions of those in power. In cultures with high power distance (e.g. Malaysia), the less powerful accept power relations that are autocratic or paternalistic. Subordinates acknowledge the power of others based on their formal, hierarchical positions. Thus, Low vs. High Power Distance does not measure or attempt to measure a culture's objective, "real" power distribution, but rather the way people perceive power differences.

Individualism vs. collectivism - This dimension measures how much members of the culture define themselves apart from their group memberships. In individualist cultures, people are expected to develop and display their individual personalities and to choose their own affiliations. In collectivist cultures, people are defined and act mostly as a member of a long-term group, such as the family, a religious group, an age cohort, a town, or a profession, among others.

Masculinity vs. femininity - This dimension measures the value placed on traditionally male or female values (as understood in most Western cultures). In so-called 'masculine' cultures, people value competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions. In so-called 'feminine' cultures, people value relationships and quality of life. This dimension is often renamed by users of Hofstede's work, e.g. to Quantity of Life vs. Quality of Life. Another reading of the same dimension holds that in 'M' cultures, the differences between gender roles are more dramatic and less fluid than in 'F' cultures

Low vs. high uncertainty avoidance - This dimension measures how much members of a society attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty. In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, people prefer explicit rules (e.g. about religion and food) and formally structured activities, and employees tend to remain longer with their present employer. In cultures with low uncertainty avoidance, people prefer implicit or flexible rules or guidelines and informal activities. Employees tend to change employers more frequently.

Michael Harris Bond and his collaborators subsequently found a fifth dimension which was initially called Confucian dynamism. Hofstede later incorporated this into his framework as:

Long vs. short term orientation - This dimension describes a society's "time horizon," or the importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that affect the future: persistence/perseverance, thrift, and shame. In short term oriented societies, people value actions and attitudes that are affected by the past or the present: normative statements, immediate stability, protecting one's own face, respect for tradition, and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts.

What strategies that Hilton adopt when merged with stakis in order to support culture integration. Why they merged.

Kurt Lewin

Change Management Model

Kurt Lewin proposed a three stage theory of change commonly referred to as Unfreeze, Change, Freeze (or Refreeze). It is possible to take these stages to quite complicated levels but I don't believe this is necessary to be able to work with the theory. But be aware that the theory has been criticised for being too simplistic.

Stage 1: Unfreezing

The Unfreezing stage is probably one of the more important stages to understand in the world of change we live in today. This stage is about getting ready to change. It involves getting to a point of understanding that change is necessary, and getting ready to move away from our current comfort zone.

This first stage is about preparing ourselves, or others, before the change (and ideally creating a situation in which we want the change).

The more we feel that change is necessary, the more urgent it is, the more motivated we are to make the change. Right? Yes, of course! If you understand procrastination (like I do!) then you'd recognise that the closer the deadline, the more likely you are to snap into action and actually get the job started!

With the deadline comes some sort of reward or punishment linked to the job. If there's no deadline, then the urge to change is lower than the need to change. There's much lower motivation to make a change and get on with it.

Unfreezing and getting motivated for the change is all about weighing up the 'pro's' and 'con's' and deciding if the 'pro's' outnumber the 'con's' before you take any action. This is the basis of what Kurt Lewin called the Force Field Analysis.

Force Field Analysis is a fancy way of saying that there are lots of different factors (forces) for and against making change that we need to be aware of (analysis). If the factors for change outweigh the factors against change we'll make the change. If not, then there's low motivation to change - and if we feel pushed to change we're likely to get grumpy and dig in our heels.

This first 'Unfreezing' stage involves moving ourselves, or a department, or an entire business towards motivation for change. The Kurt Lewin Force Field Analysis is a useful way to understand this process and there are plenty of ideas of how this can be done.

Stage 2: Change - or Transition

Kurt Lewin was aware that change is not an event, but rather a process. He called that process a transition. Transition is the inner movement or journey we make in reaction to a change. This second stage occurs as we make the changes that are needed.

People are 'unfrozen' and moving towards a new way of being.

That said this stage is often the hardest as people are unsure or even fearful. Imagine bungey jumping or parachuting. You may have convinced yourself that there is a great benefit for you to make the jump, but now you find yourself on the edge looking down. Scary stuff! But when you do it you may learn a lot about yourself.

This is not an easy time as people are learning about the changes and need to be given time to understand and work with them. Support is really important here and can be in the form of training, coaching, and expecting mistakes as part of the process.

Using role models and allowing people to develop their own solutions also help to make the changes. It's also really useful to keep communicating a clear picture of the desired change and the benefits to people so they don't lose sight of where they are heading.

Stage 3: Freezing (or Refreezing)

Kurt Lewin refers to this stage as freezing although a lot of people refer to it as 'refreezing'. As the name suggests this stage is about establishing stability once the changes have been made. The changes are accepted and become the new norm. People form new relationships and become comfortable with their routines. This can take time.

It's often at this point that people laugh and tell me that practically there is never time for this 'freezing' stage. And it's just this that's drawn criticism to the Kurt Lewin model.

In todays world of change the next new change could happen in weeks or less. There is just no time to settle into comfortable routines. This rigidity of freezing does not fit with modern thinking about change being a continuous, sometimes chaotic process in which great flexibility is demanded.

So popular thought has moved away from the concept of freezing. Instead, we should think about this final stage as being more flexible, something like a milkshake or soft serv icecream, in the current favourite flavour, rather than a rigid frozen block. This way 'Unfreezing' for the next change might be easier.