Organizational Structure

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 8

OrganizationalStructure

Organizationalstructure entails the framework under which an organizationfunctions. It acts like the operating manual, which informs membersof an organization what to do for example, it defines issues likework allocation and supervision (Griffin&ampMoorhead,2014). It is critical for an organization to have an organizationalstructure because it provides clear guidelines concerning how tohandle issues and binds members together. There are differentorganizational structures that an organization may choose to followin its operations. In this assignment, mechanistic and organicorganizational structures will be discussed their description willbe given and how they are efficient.

Mechanistic

Mechanisticorganizational structure is viewed as bureaucratic and hierarchical.Organizations adopting this organizational structure are viewed ashaving specialized functions, formalized practices and procedures,and highly centralized authority (Gitman&ampMcDaniel,2008). Mechanistic organizations are relatively simpler and easier toorganize however, rapid change is exceedingly challenging comparedto organic organizations. One of the characteristics of themechanistic structure is that employees work separately on tasks thatthey assign themselves. The chain of command is definite anddecisions are usually kept high up the organizational chain aspossible. Another characteristic of this organizational structure isthat communication is viewed as a process amid managers andsupervisors to executives in fact, there is minimal dailyinteraction if any (Hall &ampTolbert,2008). Besides, this organizational structure is characterized bystrict organization policies or operating standards that have a lotof documentation. Comparing organic and mechanistic structures,mechanistic is viewed as the most stable structure of the two. Thestructure of organizations depicting mechanistic organizationalstructure usually holds tight control over employees and processes.Policies become implemented and seldom deviated from. There is also aclear chain of command in delegating power and responsibilitiesthroughout the organization. Most manufacturing companies identifywith this organizational structure however, other organizations suchas universities also benefit from this organizational structure. Thisstructure is more efficient with organizations that are operating instable and certain environments.

Organic

Organicorganizational structures are usually marked by interactions andcommunications that are horizontal. Besides, it is also known todepict low specialization, where knowledge tends to reside where itis most useful. Organizations having the organic organizationalstructure are decentralized, which is marked by informal and formalinvolvement in decision making (Remmé,2008). In organic organizational structure, employees work in groupsand usually share input on tasks. It is characterized by teamshandling one task. Besides, communication is usually open amidexecutives, managers and employees. Indeed, in the organicorganizational structure, there is immense scale of verbalcommunication amid different parties. Within the hierarchy of power,,there is more face to face time, which fosters communication amid theparties. Organizations that adopt this organizational structure havemore open communication (Plunkettet al, 2008). This structure of business is usually adaptable andflexible to developing changes. Although the environment isunpredictable, it is well maintained by the freedom given to themanagement and employees. This organizational structure is moreefficient for organizations that are beginning operations, which havenot yet stabilized in the environment they are operating in.

Comparingthe two organizational structures, organic organizational structureis more efficient compared to mechanistic organizational structure.This is because organic organizational structure fosterscommunication amid the stakeholders. Communication is viewed as thesole source for an organization to achieve most of its goals sincewithout communication most of the issues within the organization maynot be tackled (Baligh,2006). For instance, if there is minimal communication between theexecutives and managers, the managers would not know what changeshave occurred or are about to occur in the operation of anorganization, which may delay in realizing a given goal. In theorganic organizational structure, there is communication amidemployees, managers and executives, which provides an opportunity ofhaving a good flow of information. This would automatically lead tothings being handled with efficiency unlike in mechanisticorganizational structure, where there is minimal or no communicationamid the executives, managers and employees.

Besides,the organic organizational structure is more efficient compared tothe mechanistic organizational structure because organicorganizational structure fosters employee freedom. Employee freedomis exceedingly vital in promoting employee happiness. Employees willalways be happy, when they have their freedom (Dyck&ampNeubert,2010). When employees are happy, they are highly encouraged to workfor an organization that have employed them without creatingdisruptions that may stop the operations of the organization such asstrikes. This implies that organizations that adopt organicorganizational structures are likely to have efficiencies in itsoperations since employees tend to be motivated to work for theorganizations. This is not the case with organizations that adoptmechanistic organizational structure because such organizations donot give employees freedom, which may discourage them from operatingefficiently for the organizations. Thus, due to the freedom given toemployees in organic organizational structures, organicorganizational structures tend to be more efficient than mechanisticorganizational structure.

Furthermore,organic organizational structure is more efficient compared to themechanistic organizational structure because it supportsdecentralization unlike in mechanistic where there is highcentralization in most of the issues. For example, when it comes todecision making, mechanistic supports the idea that the decision becentralized to the highest hierarchy, while in organic organizationalstructure, decision making is decentralized implying differentparties have a say in the making of decisions (Needham&ampDransfield,1994). The involvement of different parties in decision makingensures that almost everyone agrees with the decision being madethis is a critical aspect in ensuring that there is efficiency in theoperations of the organization. On the other hand, organicorganizational structure is more efficient than mechanistic becauseit is flexible to changes. It is due to the flexibility that fostersthe adoption of issues that can bring about efficiencies in theoperations of an organization.

Organizationsthat face a dynamic and uncertain environment are well suited todeveloping or maintaining organic organizational structure, whileorganizations that operate in a stable environment can benefit fromthe development or maintenance of the mechanistic organizationalstructure (Aquinas,2010). This is because organic structures have the capacity ofprocessing and distributing information and knowledge in a fastermanner within the organization, which subsequently results in anaugmented ability to react or respond to environmental changes. Onthe other hand, mechanistic structure may act as an efficient andeffective organizational structure for organizations operating in anenvironment that is more certain and stable. Organizations operatingin stable environments may not require making decisions in a fastermanner. Similarly, most of the day to day decisions and theprocedures of operating may be formal and centralized since there isno need for constant innovation or change.

Start-uptech companies would need to adopt organic organizational structuresince the environment that the organizations would enter into wouldbe uncertain. This organizational structure would be good for thestart-up tech companies because they would allow for any changes inthe environment (Huth,2008). Organic structures have the capacity of processing anddistributing information and knowledge in a faster manner within thecompanies, leading to the capacity of reacting to environmentalchanges. For big corporations, they will need to adopt mechanisticorganizational structure because they will require making centralizeddecisions.

Conclusion

Mechanisticand organic organizational structures can be adopted by organizationsdepending on the environment that an organization is operating in.Organizations adopting mechanistic organizational structure areviewed as having specialized functions, formalized practices andprocedures, and have highly centralized authority. Mechanisticorganizations are relatively simpler and easier to organize however,rapid change is exceedingly challenging compared to organicorganizations. This makes the mechanistic organizational structuregood to work with in an environment that is certain and stable. Onthe other hand, organizations having the organic organizationalstructure are decentralized, which is marked by informal and formalinvolvement in decision making. In organic organizational structure,employees work in groups and usually share input on tasks. It ischaracterized by teams handling one task. Besides, communication isusually open amid executives, managers and employees. Thisorganizational structure is more efficient for organizations that arebeginning operations, which have not yet stabilized in theenvironment they are operating in. Comparing the two organizationalstructures, organic organizational structure is more efficientcompared to mechanistic organizational structure. This is becauseorganic organizational structure fosters communication amid thestakeholders and there is decentralization of decision making.

Referees

Aquinas,P. G. (2010).&nbspOrganizationstructure and design: Applications and challenges.New Delhi: Excel Books.

Baligh,H. H. (2006).&nbspOrganizationstructures: Theory and design, analysis and prescription.New York: Springer.

Dyck,B., &amp Neubert, M. J. (2010).&nbspManagement:Current practices and new directions.Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gitman,L. J., &amp McDaniel, C. D. (2008).&nbspThefuture of business: The essentials.Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western.

Griffin,R. W., &amp Moorhead, G. (2014).&nbspOrganizationalbehavior: Managing people and organizations.Mason, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning.

Hall,R. H., &amp Tolbert, P. S. (2008).&nbspOrganizations:Structures, processes, and outcomes.Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.

Huth,T. (2008).&nbspOrganizingcross-functional new product development projects: The phase-specificeffects of organizational antecedents.Germany: Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler.

Needham,D., &amp Dransfield, R. (1994).&nbspBusinessstudies.Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.

Plunkett,W. R., Attner, R. F., &amp Allen, G. (2008).&nbspManagement:Meeting and exceeding customer expectations.Australia: Thomson/South-Western.

Remmé,J. (2008).&nbspLeadership,change and responsibility.Oxford: Meyer &amp Meyer Media.