Organizational Structure

Organizational Structure



Organizational Structure

Introduction

Classifications of organizational behaviour and psychology (Weinert, 1998) seen in the organization include amongst others, the highest level of collectivism and that distinguish them among other things from other individual and groups. There is criticism that among other things, the analysis of collective behaviour of organizations (relations between Organizations and the relationships between organizations and their environment) and the analysis of individual behaviour in organizations, i.e. the social processes missing in organizations. Nevertheless, the study of organizational structures is subjected to a high degree of appreciation in the context of organizational theory. Kieser and Kubicek (1992) observe that organizational structure is the most important characteristic of organizations. Similarly, the centrality of the analysis of organizational structures in the preface of Kubicek and Welter (1985) highlights: “We have long to live in certain world organizations. The Structures of these organizations limit our freedom of action in working life, as consumers, as citizens, and in other areas of life”.

The analysis of organizational structures is an old topic in business administration, sociology, psychology and political science. The determination of data on the organizational structure is essentially an analysis of different stakeholder's group decision making (Kubicek & Welter, 1985). Thus, in this research article the aim is to apply theoretical sciences to target the core question of why differing organizational structures, followed, and what were its overall impact on the organizational performances. As such the core question is how organizational structures under certain dynamics can meet the performance requirements optimally. 

Discussion

For the purpose of this research appear, the data determined to be used is the basis for decisions about organizational changes that are associated with human and economic consequences. Beyond structural indicators allow a comparison between different organizational departments or even between individual companies. Kubicek & Welter (1985) argued that towards the end of the 70s, the representatives of the organization theory were disillusioned as there was little new in the research evidence relating the organizational structure (Jones, 2010). Then there existed a large number of conflicting or non-comparable loaded findings by inadequate researchers as well as a lack of standardization of measures used, in these researches. This was essentially due to two reasons. Firstly, it was questionable whether the reason the deviation from the "ideal line" through the individual research groups is created, or whether it reflects the complexity of the area more. This question is answered in several layers: the individualism of the researcher, as a reason for this development is not considered as the sole explanation. It should be noted that a complete classification of the type of natural sciences the subject matter in all its complexity and ambiguity of social reality does not seem appropriate. As a consequence of the development it essentially results in the recommendation to a theoretical pluralism, as a chance for progress in knowledge. Since the social reality, manifested in the organizational structure, not by single standardized measuring instruments can be detected and displayed, a combination of a quantitative and qualitative approach (principle of methodological pluralism) are ...