Modern Structural Organization Theory: A Summary

Modern Structural Organization guess A SummaryIntroductionThe modern geomorphologicists argon link uped with numerous of the uniform issues that the classical social structuralists were, but their theories have been influenced by and benefited greatly from advancements in constitution theory since the second World War.Modern structuralists tenets ar similar to Classical structuralists thinking organisational efficiency is the essence of the organisational rationality, and the goal of the rationality is to Increase the convergenceion of wealth in basis of real goods and services.Structural system theory is concerned with good particularitys (hierarchical levels of ecesisal self-confidence and coordination, and horizontal variantiations in the midst of organizational units) such as those amidst product or service lines, geographical areas, or skills.The base assumptions of the structural perspective Organizations are rational institutions whose primary purpose is to accomplish orb objectives rational organizational air is achieved best through systems of defined rules and formal authority. Organizational control and coordination are key for maintaining organizational rationality.There is a best structure for any organization, or at least a around appropriate structure in light of its abandoned objectives, the environmental conditions surrounding, the nature of its products or services, and the engine room of the production process.Specialization and the division of restriction increase the quality and quantity of production, particularly in highly trained motions and professions.Most problems in an organization result from structural flaws and tin be solved by changing the structure.The Most Important Theorists and Their Contributions mechanical and Organic Systems (Tom Burns and G. M. Stalker)The beginning of administrative wisdom is the awareness that thither is no one optimum type of management system.They developed their wide cit ed theory of mechanistic and organic systems of organization, and Contribute to the creation of the sociotechnical betterment.They found that stable conditions may suggest the recitation of a mechanistic form of organization where a traditional pattern of hierarchy, reliance on formal rules and regulations, vertical communications, and structured decision making is possible.Dynamic conditions( stakes in which the environment changes rapidly) require the use of an organic form of organization where thither is little rigidity, much than participation, and more reliance on spielers to define and delineate their positions and relationships.Either form of organization may be appropriate in particular situations.Characteristics of the Mechanistic Management System areThe specialized differentiation of proceeding(a) tasks into which the problems and tasks facing the concern as a whole are broken down.The abstract nature of apiece individual task, which is pursued with techniques and purposes more or slight distinct from those of the concern as a whole.The reconciliation, for each level in the hierarchy, of these distinct performances by the immediate blue-ribbon(prenominal)s, who are also, in turn, responsible for seeing that each is relevant in his own special part of the task.The precise definition of rights and obligations and technical methods attached to each functional role.The translation of rights and obligations and methods into the responsibilities of a functional position.Hierarchic structure of control, authority, and communication.A livelihood of the hierarchic structure by the location of populateledge of actualities exclusively at the top of the hierarchy, where the final reconciliation of distinct tasks and assessment of relevance is made.A tendency for interaction between members of the concern to be vertical (between superior and subordinate).A tendency for operations and fetching behavior to be governed by the instructions and decisi ons issued by superiors.Insistence on loyalty to the concern and respectfulness to superiors as a condition of membership.A greater importance and prestigiousness attaching to internal (local) than to general (cosmopolitan) knowledge, experience, and skill.Characteristics of the Organic Management System areThe contributing(prenominal) nature of special knowledge and experience to the commons task of the concern.The veridical nature of the individual task, which is seen as set by the total situation of the concern.The adjustment and continual redefinition of individual tasks through interaction with others.The shedding of business as a limited field of rights, obligations, and methods.The spread of commitment to concern beyond any technical definition.A net exit structure of control, authority, and communication. The sanctions which drill to the individuals conduct in his working role fol low more from presumed community of interest with the rest of the working organization in the survival and growth of the firm, and less from a contractual relationship between himself and a nonpersonal corporation, represented for him by an immediate superior.Omniscience no perennial imputed to the head of the concern knowledge about the technical or mercenary nature of the here and now task may be determined anywhere in the ne cardinalrk this location becoming the ad hoc marrow squash of control authority and communication.A lateral quite an than a vertical direction of communication through the organization, communication between people of different rank, also, resembling consultation quite an than command.A content of communication which consists of breeding and advice rather than instructions and decisions.Commitment to the concerns tasks and to the technological ethos of material supercharge and expansion is more highly assessd than loyalty and obedience.Importance and prestige attach to affiliations and expertise valid in the industrial and technical an d technical milieux external to the firm.The Concept of Formal Organization (Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott)Social organization refers to the slip panache in which human conduct becomes socially organized, that is to the observed regularities in the behavior of people that are due to the social conditions in which they find themselves rather than to their physiological or psychological characteristics as individuals.Since the distinctive characteristics of these organizations is that they have been officially established for the explicit purpose of achieving certain goals, the term formal organization is used to designate them.They assert that all organizations include both a formal and informal element. The informal organization by its nature is grow in the formal structure and condenses its formal organization by establishing norms for the operation of the organization that potful non always be spelled out by rules and policies.It is impossible to know and understand the received structure of a formal organization without a similar understanding of its parallel informal organization.Organizational Choice proceeds versus Function (Arthur Walker and Jay Lorsch)A manager facing the same basic question when he think about the form of his organization, whether to throng activities in the main by product (various functional specialist working on a single product be grouped together under the same superior) or by function (all specialist in a given function be grouped under a common emboss regardless of difference in products they are involved in).The manager should organise choices based on these three criteriaWhich approach permit maximum use of technical knowledge?Which provides the most efficient utilization of machinery and equipment?Which provides the best wish of obtaining the required control and coordination?The characteristics of manufacturing companies, the first are organized by product basis, and the other by function basis.For functio n based company slight differentiation turn out in goal orientation.Integration is somewhat less hard-hitting.Confrontation of conflicts, but also smoothing over and avoidance rather circumscribe communication pattern.Efficient, stable production, but less successful in improving plant capabilities.Prevalent scent of satisfaction among the employees, but less feeling of stress and involvement.For product based companyGreater differentiation except in structure and time orientation.Integration is more caseive.Confrontation of conflicts, open, face-to-face communication.Successful in improving plant capabilities, but less impelling in stable production.Prevalent feeling of stress and involvement, but less feeling of satisfaction.They concluded that either structural arrangement crumb be appropriate, depending upon the organizations environment and the nature of the organization itself.The Five grassroots Parts of the Organization (Henry Mintzberg)Synthesized many schools of organizational management theory.Created a fashion model of organizations with five interdependent parts the strategic peak, the middle line, the operating core, the technostructure, and the support staff.Operating Core the operators carry out the basic work of the organization. strategical Apex Those at the very top of the hierarchy, together with their own staff. The apex is charged with ensuring that the organization executes its mission. centerfield Line Managers that join the apex to the core. Middle line which transmits authority from the top to the bottom.Technostructure The analysts carry out their work of standardizing the work of others, in addition to applying their analytical techniques to help the organization adapt to its environment. maintenance Staff Supports the functioning of the operating core indirectly, that is, outside the basic prevail of operating work.The interdependencies among the organizational members tail end be showed asPooled coupling Members ass ign common resources but are otherwise independent.Sequential coupling Members work in series as in a relay race. cor intercourse coupling Members feed their work back and forth among themselves in effect each receives inputs from and provides outputs to the others.In Praise of Hierarchy (Elliott Jaques)Managerial hierarchy is the most efficient, the hardiest, and in fact the most natural structure ever devised for bigger organizations. Properly structured hierarchy can release energy and creativity, veer productivity, and actually improve morale.Managerial hierarchy or moulding is the only effective organizational form for deploying people and tasks at complementary levels, where people can do the tasks assigned to them, where the people in any given layer can add value to the work of those in the layer on a lower floor them, and, finally, where this stratification of management strikes everyone as necessary and welcome.One of businesss great coeval problems is how to release a nd sustain among the people who work in corporate hierarchies the thrust, initiative, and adaptability of the entrepreneur. hierarchic structure has been the source of a great deal of trouble and inefficiency, the common complaint it face areThe excessive layering, too many rungs on the ladder. Information passes through too many people, decisions through too many levels.Few managers seem to add real value to the work of their subordinates.Hierarchies take in out the nastier aspects of human behavior, like greed, insensitivity, careerism, and self importance.Group authority without group accountability is dysfunctional, and group authority with group accountability is unacceptable.Group authority without group accountability is dysfunctional, and group authority with group accountability is unacceptable.why Hierarchy?Managerial hierarchy is and will remain the only way to structure unified working systems with hundreds, or thousands of employees, for the very good source that mana gerial hierarchy is the expression of two fundamental characteristics of real workThe tasks we carry out are not only more or less multiplex but they also become more complex as they separate out into discrete categories or types of complexity.The same is true of the mental work that people do on the job, for as this work grows more complex, it too separates out into distinct categories or types of mental activity.These two characteristics permit hierarchy to meet four of any organizations fundamental need to add real value to work as it moves through the organization, to delineate and nail down accountability at each stage of the value adding process, to place people with the necessary competence at each organizational layer, and to build a general consensus and acceptance of the managerial structure that achieves these ends. vertical layers depend on jumps in responsibility that depends in turn on how far ahead a manager must think and plan.He suggested as to make hierarchy wor k is to distinguish carefully between hierarchical layers and pay grades, and set up a different managerial hierarchy based on responsibility rather than salary.Companies need more than seven pay grades as a rule, many more.Technology as a contingency Factor (Richard M. Burton and Borge Obel)They covers engine rooms effect on formalization, centralization, complexity, pattern, coordination and control, and incentives.They studied the personal effectuate that various dimensions of technology have on organizational design.The effects of technology assessed on six dimensions of organization formalizations, centralizations, complexity, grade, coordination and control, and incentives.Technology effects on formalization, offersIf technology routineness is low, so formalization should be low.If technology routineness is high, thence formalization should be high.If the organization employs many professionals, then Proposition 2 is not strong.If the organization is in the service indus try, then the strength of proposition 1 and 2 is greater than if it is in the manufacturing industry. Retail and wholesale organizations can be expressed to fall in between.If the technology type is process(high automation), then formalization should be higher than it would be otherwise.If the organization uses modern information technology, then formalization should be high.Technology effects on centralization, propositionsIf technology routineness is high and the size of the organization is small, then centralization should be high.If the organization is large and technology routineness is high, then centralization should be medium.Technology effects on organizational complexity, propositionsIf the size of the organization is large and the organization has a technology that is routine, then complexity should be high(particularly horizontal differentiation).If the size of the organization is small and the organization has a technology that is routine, then complexity should be medi um.If the size of the organization is large and has a nonroutine technology, then complexity should be high(particularly vertical differentiation).If the organization has a nonroutine technology, then the span of control should be narrow.If the organization has a routine technology, then the span of control should be wide.If the technology type is process(high automation), then complexity is high.Technology effects on configuration, propositionsIf the technology type is unit, then it is more likely that the organization has a matrix configuration.If the organization has a nonroutine technology, then the functional configuration is not likely to be an efficient configuration.If the technology is not divisible, then the configuration cannot be divisional.If the technology is divisible, then it isnt very likely that the configuration should be a matrix configuration.If the organization has a nonroutine technology, then it isnt likely that machine or professional bureaucracy is an effic ient configuration.If the technology isnt nonroutine, then the configuration cant be an ad hoc configuration.Technology effects on coordination and control mechanisms, propositionsIf the size of the organization isnt small and if the technology is routine, then coordination and control should be obtained via rules and planning, and a media with low richness and a small amount of information can be used. Incentives should based on procedures.If the technology is nonroutine, then coordination should be obtained via group meetings, and a media with high richness and a large amount of information can be used. Incentives should based on results.If the organization doesnt have a dominant technology, then the technology structure recommendation should be discounted relative to other contingency factor.