File Name: mechanistic and organic structures of organizations .zip
For details on it including licensing , click here. This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.
- Mechanistic Organization vs. Organic Organization
- Organic vs Mechanistic Structures
- Mechanistic Vs. Organic Organizational Structure
- Organic Structure of Organizational Design
Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. Lunenburg Published Sociology.
Mechanistic Organization vs. Organic Organization
For details on it including licensing , click here. This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you credit the author but see below , don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the same terms. This content was accessible as of December 29, , and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz in an effort to preserve the availability of this book.
Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed.
Additionally, per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this project's attribution page. For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page.
You can browse or download additional books there. To download a. Organizational structure How individual and team work within an organization are coordinated. To achieve organizational goals and objectives, individual work needs to be coordinated and managed. Structure is a valuable tool in achieving coordination, as it specifies reporting relationships who reports to whom , delineates formal communication channels, and describes how separate actions of individuals are linked together.
Organizations can function within a number of different structures, each possessing distinct advantages and disadvantages. Although any structure that is not properly managed will be plagued with issues, some organizational models are better equipped for particular environments and tasks. What exactly do we mean by organizational structure? We will review four aspects of structure that have been frequently studied in the literature: centralization, formalization, hierarchical levels, and departmentalization.
Then we will examine how these building blocks come together to form two different configurations of structures. Centralization The degree to which decision-making authority is concentrated at higher levels in an organization.
In centralized companies, many important decisions are made at higher levels of the hierarchy, whereas in decentralized companies, decisions are made and problems are solved at lower levels by employees who are closer to the problem in question. As an employee, where would you feel more comfortable and productive?
Decentralized companies give more authority to lower-level employees, resulting in a sense of empowerment. Decisions can be made more quickly, and employees often believe that decentralized companies provide greater levels of procedural fairness to employees. Job candidates are more likely to be attracted to decentralized organizations. Because centralized organizations assign decision-making responsibility to higher-level managers, they place greater demands on the judgment capabilities of CEOs and other high-level managers.
Many companies find that the centralization of operations leads to inefficiencies in decision making. For example, in the s, the industrial equipment manufacturer Caterpillar suffered the consequences of centralized decision making. At the time, all pricing decisions were made in the corporate headquarters in Peoria, Illinois. This meant that when a sales representative working in Africa wanted to give a discount on a product, they needed to check with headquarters. Headquarters did not always have accurate or timely information about the subsidiary markets to make an effective decision.
As a result, Caterpillar was at a disadvantage against competitors such as the Japanese firm Komatsu. Seeking to overcome this centralization paralysis, Caterpillar underwent several dramatic rounds of reorganization in the s and s.
Nelson, G. New York: Crown Business. Changing their decision-making approach to a more decentralized style has helped Caterpillar compete at the global level.
However, centralization also has its advantages. Some employees are more comfortable in an organization where their manager confidently gives instructions and makes decisions. Centralization may also lead to more efficient operations, particularly if the company is operating in a stable environment. Ambrose, M. The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85 , —; Miller, D. Strategic process and content as mediators between organizational context and structure.
Academy of Management Journal, 31 , —; Oldham, G. Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly , 26 , 66—83; Pierce, J. Organization structure, individual attitudes, and innovation. Academy of Management Review , 2 , 27—37; Schminke, M. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 , —; Turban, D. Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 , —; Wally, S.
Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 37 , — In fact, organizations can suffer from extreme decentralization. For example, some analysts believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI experiences some problems because all its structure and systems are based on the assumption that crime needs to be investigated after it happens. Over time, this assumption led to a situation where, instead of following an overarching strategy, each FBI unit is completely decentralized and field agents determine how investigations should be pursued.
It has been argued that due to the change in the nature of crimes, the FBI needs to gather accurate intelligence before a crime is committed; this requires more centralized decision making and strategy development.
Brazil, J. Mission: Impossible? Fast Company, , 92— Hitting the right balance between decentralization and centralization is a challenge for many organizations. For example, for a company of that size, centralizing purchasing operations led to big cost savings because the company could negotiate important discounts from suppliers. At the same time, many analysts think that the centralization went too far, leading to the loss of the service-oriented culture at the stores.
Nardelli was ousted after seven years. Charan, R. Harvard Business Review, 84 4 , 60—70; Marquez, J. Big bucks at door for Depot HR leader. Workforce Management, 86 1. Formalization The extent to which policies, procedures, job descriptions, and rules are written and explicitly articulated. Formalized structures are those in which there are many written rules and regulations.
These structures control employee behavior using written rules, so that employees have little autonomy to decide on a case-by-case basis. An advantage of formalization is that it makes employee behavior more predictable. Whenever a problem at work arises, employees know to turn to a handbook or a procedure guideline.
Therefore, employees respond to problems in a similar way across the organization; this leads to consistency of behavior. While formalization reduces ambiguity and provides direction to employees, it is not without disadvantages. A high degree of formalization may actually lead to reduced innovativeness because employees are used to behaving in a certain manner.
In fact, strategic decision making in such organizations often occurs only when there is a crisis. A formalized structure is associated with reduced motivation and job satisfaction as well as a slower pace of decision making. Fredrickson, J. The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review, 11 , —; Oldham, G. Academy of Management Review , 2 , 27—37; Wally, S.
Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal , 24 , — The service industry is particularly susceptible to problems associated with high levels of formalization. For example, while a handful of airlines such as Southwest do a good job of empowering their employees to handle complaints, in many airlines, lower-level employees have limited power to resolve a customer problem and are constrained by stringent rules that outline a limited number of acceptable responses.
Keeping the size of the organization constant, tall structures Organizations with several layers of management between frontline employees and the top level.
In tall structures, the number of employees reporting to each manager tends to be smaller, resulting in greater opportunities for managers to supervise and monitor employee activities. In contrast, flat structures involve a larger number of employees reporting to each manager. In such a structure, managers will be relatively unable to provide close supervision, leading to greater levels of freedom of action for each employee.
Research indicates that flat organizations provide greater need satisfaction for employees and greater levels of self-actualization. Ghiselli, E. Need satisfaction, managerial success, and organizational structure. Personnel Psychology, 23 , —; Porter, L. Relationships of tall and flat organization structures to the satisfactions of foreign managers.
Personnel Psychology, 18 , — At the same time, there may be some challenges associated with flat structures. Research shows that when managers supervise a large number of employees, which is more likely to happen in flat structures, employees experience greater levels of role ambiguity—the confusion that results from being unsure of what is expected of a worker on the job. Chonko, L.
Organic vs Mechanistic Structures
Some businesses are more suited to a hierarchical structure that adheres to rigid guidelines and procedures, while others benefit greatly from a structure that allows for free-flowing ideas and linear communication styles. The mechanistic organizational structure uses a top-down approach to management, while organic organizational structure uses a more flexible management style. The mechanistic organizational structure is the most common business structure and is typically used in a manufacturing environment. This type of organizational structure is bureaucratic, which means it employs a highly centralized authority figure. A set of formal procedures, functions and processes are implemented throughout the organization under a mechanistic organizational structure. In this type of organization, employees tend to work separately on their own tasks, which are handed down through a chain of command. Company-wide decisions are left to employees who reside at the top of the hierarchical chain and communication is passed from the top down.
Managers at all levels in a health care organization must organize work to achieve the organization's mission and goals. This requires managers to decide the organization structure, which involves dividing the work among jobs and departments and then coordinating them all toward the common purpose. Organization structure, which is reflected in an organization chart, may range on a continuum from very mechanistic to very organic. Managers must decide how mechanistic versus how organic to make the entire organization and each of its departments. To do this, managers should carefully consider 5 factors for the organization and for each individual department: external environment, goals, work production, size, and culture. Some factors may push toward more mechanistic structure, whereas others may push in the opposite direction toward more organic structure. Practical advice can help managers at all levels design appropriate structure for their departments and organization.
Mechanistic was one polar extreme of an organizational structure, as opposed to the other polar extreme of organizational structure known as the.
Mechanistic Vs. Organic Organizational Structure
Some of those structures are very strict and hierarchal, like the bureaucratic model, and some of the structures, like boundaryless, are pretty loose and free-wheeling. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. When managers combine the basic components and elements of an organizational structure together, the result has certain characteristics that are best understood by looking at it through the lens of organic and mechanistic organizations. Organic organizations have a low degree of formality, specialization and standardization. Their decision making is decentralized and their activities are well-integrated.
For the most part, mechanistic organization is applied to most all business structures but is predominant in manufacturing while organic organization is best applied to businesses that apply a more open business structure such as online business platforms. It is characterized by its 1 highly centralized authority, 2 formalized procedures and practices, and 3 specialized functions. Mechanistic organization is relatively easier and simpler to organize, but rapid change is very challenging. Contrast to organic organization.
The organizational design of a company establishes the hierarchy, the workflow and corporate culture of a company. Organic organization is compared to the mechanistic structure with stark differences between the two. Organic structur e is a decentralized approach, whereas mechanistic structure is a centralized approach.
Mechanistic Organic Individual specialization: Employees work separately and specialize in one task Joint Specialization: Employees work together and coordinate tasks Simple integrating mechanisms: Hierarchy of authority well-defined Complex integrating mechanisms: task forces and teams are primary integrating mechanisms Centralization: Decision-making kept as high as possible. Most communication is vertical.
Organic Structure of Organizational Design
Последний шанс. Но мы его упустили. - Не могу с ним не согласиться, - заметил Фонтейн. - Сомневаюсь, что Танкадо пошел бы на риск, дав нам возможность угадать ключ к шифру-убийце. Сьюзан рассеянно кивнула, но тут же вспомнила, как Танкадо отдал им Северную Дакоту.
Organizations will basically be either mechanistic or organic. A mechanistic organization is one with a rigid structure that is somewhat inflexible and bureaucratic.
- Вы вместе с Танкадо взяли АНБ в заложники, после чего ты и его обвел вокруг пальца. Скажи, Танкадо действительно умер от сердечного приступа или же его ликвидировал кто-то из ваших людей. - Ты совсем ослепла. Как ты не понимаешь, что я ко всему этому непричастен. Развяжи. Развяжи, пока не явились агенты безопасности. - Они не придут, - сказала она безучастно.
Еще несколько секунд - и все решит один-единственный выстрел. Даже если Беккер успеет спуститься вниз, ему все равно некуда бежать: Халохот выстрелит ему в спину, когда он будет пересекать Апельсиновый сад. Халохот переместился ближе к центру, чтобы двигаться быстрее, чувствуя, что уже настигает жертву: всякий раз, пробегая мимо очередного проема, он видел ее тень.
Росио угрожающе приблизилась. - Я знаю всех полицейских в этом городе. Они мои лучшие клиенты. Беккер чувствовал, как ее глаза буквально впиваются в. Он решил сменить тактику: - Я из специальной группы, занимающейся туристами.
Буфет всегда был его первой остановкой. Попутно он бросил жадный взгляд на ноги Сьюзан, которые та вытянула под рабочим столом, и тяжело вздохнул. Сьюзан, не поднимая глаз, поджала ноги и продолжала следить за монитором. Хейл хмыкнул. Сьюзан уже привыкла к агрессивному поведению Хейла.
Меня огорчают твои разговоры о нашем агентстве как каком-то соглядатае, оснащенном современной техникой. Эта организация создавалась с единственной целью - обеспечивать безопасность страны.