ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Organizational Structure

Organizational Structure

Introduction

Organizational structure refers to the formal and informal manner in which people, job tasks, and other organizational resources are configured and coordinated. Although organizational structure sounds like a singular characteristic, it is composed of a number of dimensions, because there are multiple ways the employees within an organization and the job tasks that are carried out can be structured.

Organizational Structure: A Discussion

Organic (also organismic) is a term used to describe a type of organizational structure that is highly adaptive and flexible, with a low degree of job specialization, few levels of management, decentralized decision making, and little direct supervision of employees.

Dibrell and Miller (2002) mention the organic-mechanistic typology was initially proposed in 1961 by British researchers Tom Burns and George Stalker. They conducted a study of 20 Scottish firms to determine how their structure and management were linked to changes in the environment. The two key elements of their proposal were (a) the organic and mechanistic types and (b) the link to environment.

The organic-mechanistic types, or configurations, are generally defined in terms of a combination of multiple unidimensional structural constructs, such as complexity, formalization, and centralization (Dibrell and Miller, 2002). Thus, the organic system is one that has (a) a small number of management layers—low complexity; (b) few rules and procedures, with responsibilities and obligations vaguely defined—low degree of formalization; and (c) decision making and power shared by the existing groups in the organization—low centralization. Organic organizations possess many of the characteristics of living organisms, so much so that other authors have linked Burns and Stalker's approach to the emergence of the organic metaphor in organization studies (Dibrell and Miller, 2002).

Organizations exhibit a particular set of attributes that are more mechanistic or more organic in nature. In other words, all organizations fall along a continuum, with the ends corresponding to the ideal forms, organic and mechanistic.

The second key element is the link to the environment. Burns and Stalker found that organic systems are best suited to cope with rapidly changing environments since they display a number of attributes that are especially appropriate to nonroutine problems and unforeseen requirements. These attributes include (a) lateral and informal communication; (b) flat, fluid, and adapting structures; and (c) continuous redefinition of individual task activities. Organic systems are, therefore, ideal for industries characterized by a high pace of technical and commercial change. Conversely, they are to be avoided if the firm is operating in a stable, calm, and predictable environment; in such cases, a mechanistic system is more efficient because of the efficiencies it can create by using standard procedures to perform routine activities. In sum, neither of the two types is universally superior; each is suitable to distinct environmental circumstances (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997).

The work of Burns and Stalker pioneered the contingency approach to organizational design and structure. Their most commonly stated contribution to our understanding of organizations was to notice that different environmental conditions call for different styles of organizing. That is to say, the most effective way ...