Organization Structure b

Organization Structure b



Organization Structure b

Introduction

From a big picture perspective, we can leverage our current understanding of management (as a discipline) to gauge the relevance of its theories - old and new - to today's organisations. Even browsing through an introductory management book such as Samson and Daft (2003), one can come to appreciate that management is an interdisciplinary subject, with an eclectic sedimentary melange of theories representing the cornucopia of ideas and practices at managers' disposal; but with no one best way or “right” answer. On the other hand, it is also evident that recent theories (such as the learning organisation paradigm) are emphasised more than classical ones (such as Weberian bureaucracy); simply because today's organisations have moved on from the industrial revolution to the informational one (Toffler 1984), and because fast-paced change in the form of technological advances is now the defining factor of the so called “new economy”.

However, given the link between organisation and society, and the differences in the level of economic development of world countries; it could also be argued that while first world countries are already engaging the informational revolution, other world economies are still largely dominated by its predecessor; the industrial revolution. Take for example China's textile industry and its infrastructure of mass production factories. What type of organisation would such operations demand? The success that bureaucracy produced during the industrial revolution and up to the late twentieth century, makes it the most relevant type of organisation for such industries. Hence, at least within some contextual boundaries depending on the level of economic development of societies, bureaucracy is still relevant.

Discussion

According to Beetham (1996: 9-10), there are four main dimensions of Weberian bureaucracy. Kallinikos (2004:16) suggests that these dimensions can be further “collapsed into hierarchy and rule-bound behaviour11 as the epitomes of the bureaucratic form of organisation” (emphasis added). At a minimum, these two dimensions constitute the criteria that an organisation has to meet for it to be properly called bureaucratic according to the Weberian model.

Hence, can we find (even) traces of such characteristics in today's organisations? Probably it would be easiest to find these characteristics in the public sector; in large and mechanistic organisations12. The recently formed Electricity Commission (EC) is a perfect example13. In addition, from personal experience, even my current employer exhibits these bureaucratic dimensions. Although Vector14 is seen by many as an organic, flat and flexible organisation, it is still largely bound by internal rules and regulations. Take for example the procedure to hire new employees, with all its mandatory interviews and psychometric tests. Vector is also big on hierarchy, even though the structure is flatter (for example, there are two layers between me and the CEO). One look at the organisational chart is enough to illustrate the extent of the chain of command, which -although shorter - is nonetheless as rigid as it were when Vector was still under government's Electricity Board.

However, lest we are seen as being biased towards citing organisations that sit easier with ...