Richard L. Daft - Management. 9th ed., 2010
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
PART 4 ORGANIZING260
Virtual Network Approach The biggest advantages to a virtual network
approach are exibility and competitiveness on a global scale. The extreme exibility
of a network approach is illustrated by today’s “war on terrorism.” Most experts
agree that the primary reason the insurgency is so dif cult to ght is that it is a far-
ung collection of groups that share a speci c mission but are free to act on their own.
“Attack any single part of it, and the rest carries on largely untouched,” wrote one
journalist after talking with U.S. and Iraqi of cials. “It cannot be decapitated, because
the insurgency, for the most part, has no head.”
43
One response of the United States
and its allies is to organize into networks to quickly change course, put new people in
place as needed, and respond to situations and challenges as they emerge.
44
Similarly, today’s business organizations can bene t from a exible network
approach that lets them shift resources and respond quickly. A network organization
can draw on resources and expertise worldwide to achieve the best quality and price
and can sell its products and services worldwide. Flexibility comes from the abil-
ity to hire whatever services are needed, and to change a few months later without
constraints from owning plant, equipment, and facilities. The organization can con-
tinually rede ne itself to t new product and market opportunities. This structure is
perhaps the leanest of all organization forms because little supervision is required.
Large teams of staff specialists and administrators are not needed. A network organi-
zation may have only two or three levels of hierarchy, compared with ten or more in
traditional organizations.
45
One of the major disadvantages is lack of hands-on control. Managers do not have
all operations under one roof and must rely on contracts, coordination, negotiation,
and electronic linkages to hold things together. Each partner in the network neces-
sarily acts in its own self-interest. The weak and ambiguous boundaries create higher
uncertainty and greater demands on managers for de ning shared goals, coordinat-
ing activities, managing relationships, and keeping people focused and motivated.
46
Finally, in this type of organization, employee loyalty can weaken. Employees might
feel they can be replaced by contract services. A cohesive corporate culture is less
likely to develop, and turnover tends to be higher because emotional commitment
between organization and employee is weak.
47
ORGANIZING FOR HORIZONTAL COORDINATION
One reason for the growing use of teams and networks is that many companies are
recognizing the limits of traditional vertical organization structures in a fast-shifting
environment. In general, the trend is toward breaking down barriers between depart-
ments, and many companies are moving toward horizontal structures based on work
processes rather than departmental functions.
48
However, regardless of the type of
structure, every organization needs mechanisms for horizontal integration and coordi-
nation. The structure of an organization is not complete without designing the horizon-
tal as well as the vertical dimensions of structure.
49
The Need for Coordination
As organizations grow and evolve, two things happen. First, new positions and depart-
ments are added to deal with factors in the external environment or with new strategic
needs. For example, in recent years, most colleges and universities established in-house
legal departments to cope with increasing government regulations and a greater threat
of lawsuits in today’s society. Whereas small schools once relied on outside law rms,
legal counsel is now considered crucial to the everyday operation of a college or uni-
versity.
50
Many organizations establish information technology departments to manage
the proliferation of new information systems. As companies add positions and depart-
ments to meet changing needs, they grow more complex, with hundreds of positions
and departments performing incredibly diverse activities.
CHAPTER 9 DESIGNING ADAPTIVE ORGANIZATIONS 261
4
Organizing
Second, senior managers have to nd a way to tie all these departments together.
The formal chain of command and the supervision it provides is effective, but it is
not enough. The organization needs systems to process information and enable com-
munication among people in different departments and at different levels. Coordina-
tion refers to the quality of collaboration across departments. Without coordination,
a company’s left hand will not act in concert with the right hand, causing problems
and con icts. Coordination is required regardless of whether the organization has a
functional, divisional, or team structure. Employees identify with their immediate
department or team, taking its interest to heart, and they may not want to compro-
mise with other units for the good of the organization as a whole.
The dangers of poor coordination are re ected in what Lee Iacocca said about
Chrysler Corporation in the 1980s:
What I found at Chrysler were 35 vice presidents, each with his own turf. . . . I
couldn’t believe, for example, that the guy running engineering departments wasn’t
in constant touch with his counterpart in manufacturing. But that’s how it was.
Everybody worked independently. I took one look at that system and I almost threw
up. That’s when I knew I was in really deep trouble.
I’d call in a guy from engineering, and he’d stand there dumbfounded when I’d
explain to him that we had a design problem or some other hitch in the engineer-
ing-manufacturing relationship. He might have the ability to invent a brilliant piece
of engineering that would save us a lot of money. He might come up with a terrifi c
new design. There was only one problem: He didn’t know that the manufactur-
ing people couldn’t build it. Why? Because he had never talked to them about it.
Nobody at Chrysler seemed to understand that interaction among the different
functions in a company is absolutely critical. People in engineering and manufactur-
ing almost have to be sleeping together. These guys weren’t even fl irting!
51
If one thing changed at Chrysler (now DaimlerChrysler) in the years before
Iacocca retired, it was improved coordination. Cooperation among engineering, mar-
keting, and manufacturing enabled the rapid design and production of the popular
PT Cruiser, for example.
The problem of coordination is ampli ed in the international arena, because orga-
nizational units are differentiated not only by goals and work activities but also by
geographical distance, time differences, cultural values, and perhaps language. How
can managers ensure that needed coordination will take place in their company, both
domestically and globally? Coordination is the outcome of information and coop-
eration. Managers can design systems and structures to promote horizontal coordi-
nation. At Whirlpool, for example, managers decentralized operations to support a
global strategy, giving more authority and responsibility to teams of designers and
engineers in developing countries like Brazil, and established outsourcing relation-
ships with manufacturers in China and India.
52
Exhibit 9.10 illustrates the evolution
of organizational structures, with a growing emphasis on horizontal coordination.
Although the vertical functional structure is effective in stable environments, it does
EXHIBIT 9.10
Evolution of Organization
Structures
c
c
c
c
c
coo
r
d
inatio
n
The
The
qu
qu
q
ali
ali
ty
ty
y
o
o
f
o
o
f
o
o
o
f
l
col
col
lb
lab
lab
ora
ora
ti
tio
tio
na
n
a
cro
cro
ss
ss
d
d
d
d
de
de
dep
ep
artments.
PART 4 ORGANIZING262
not provide the horizontal coordination needed in times of rapid change. Innova-
tions such as cross-functional teams, task forces, and project managers work within
the vertical structure but provide a means to increase horizontal communication and
cooperation. The next stage involves reengineering to structure the organization into
teams working on horizontal processes. The vertical hierarchy is attened, with per-
haps only a few senior executives in traditional support functions such as nance and
human resources.
Task Forces, Teams, and Project Management
A task force is a temporary team or committee designed to solve a short-term prob-
lem involving several departments.
53
Task force members represent their depart-
ments and share information that enables
coordination. For example, the Shawmut
National Corporation created a task force
in human resources to consolidate all
employment services into a single area.
The task force looked at job banks, referral
programs, employment procedures, and
applicant tracking systems; found ways
to perform these functions for all Shaw-
mut’s divisions in one human resource
department; and then disbanded.
54
In
addition to creating task forces, compa-
nies also set up cross-functional teams, as
described earlier. A cross-functional team
furthers horizontal coordination because
participants from several departments
meet regularly to solve ongoing problems
of common interest.
55
This team is similar
to a task force except that it works with
continuing rather than temporary prob-
lems and might exist for several years.
Team members think in terms of working
together for the good of the whole rather
than just for their own department.
Companies also use project managers to
increase coordination between functional
departments. A project manager is a per-
son who is responsible for coordinating
the activities of several departments for the
completion of a speci c project.
56
Project
managers are critical today because many organizations are continually reinvent-
ing themselves, creating exible structures, and working on projects with an ever-
changing assortment of people and organizations.
57
Project managers might work
on several different projects at one time and might have to move in and out of new
projects at a moment’s notice.
The distinctive feature of the project manager position is that the person is
not a member of one of the departments being coordinated. Project managers
are located outside of the departments and have responsibility for coordinating
several departments to achieve desired project outcomes. General Mills, Procter
& Gamble, and General Foods all use product managers to coordinate their prod-
uct lines. A manager is assigned to each line, such as Cheerios, Bisquick, and
Hamburger Helper. Product managers set budget goals, marketing targets, and
strategies and obtain the cooperation from advertising, production, and sales per-
sonnel needed for implementing product strategy.
Frito-Lay, a subsidiary of PepsiCo Inc., thrives on the
introduction of new products such as Lay’s Cool Guacamole potato chips and Doritos
Guacamole tortilla chips. A task force that included members of Adelante, the Frito-Lay
network for Hispanic employees, helped develop both products. In the photo, Frito-Lay
researchers and Adelante members check the quality of the new guacamole chips.
PEPSICO
t
t
t
t
ta
tas
k
f
orce
A
temporar
y
tea
m
m
o
o
o
or
r
o
committee
f
orme
d
to so
l
ve
a
a
a
a
s
a
s
pec
pec
ifi
ifi
cs
c
s
hor
hor
t
-
t
tt
erm
erm
pr
pr
obl
obl
em
em
i
i
in
n
n
v
i
i
o
l
ving severa
l
d
epartments
.
p
p
p
p
p
roject manager
Ap
A
p
ers
ers
on
on
r
r
r
r
re
e
sponsi
bl
e
f
or coor
d
inatin
g
t
t
t
h
h
h
e activities o
f
severa
l
d
epart-
m
m
m
m
m
m
ents on a
f
u
ll
-time
b
asis
f
f
f
fo
o
o
r t
h
e com
pl
etion o
f
a s
p
eci
fi
c
p
p
p
p
p
ro
j
ect
.
CHAPTER 9 DESIGNING ADAPTIVE ORGANIZATIONS 263
4
Organizing
As a new manager, be a team or task force member who reaches out to facilitate
horizontal coordination. Don’t limit yourself to your own function. Share information
across departmental boundaries to improve horizontal communication and under-
standing. Build your people skills to infl uence and persuade as an effective project
manager.
In some organizations, project managers are included on the organization chart, as
illustrated in Exhibit 9.11. The project manager is drawn to one side of the chart to indicate
authority over the project but not over the people assigned to it. Dashed lines to the proj-
ect manager indicate responsibility for coordination and communication with assigned
team members, but department managers retain line authority over functional employ-
ees. Project managers might also have titles such as product manager, integrator, pro-
gram manager, or process owner. Project managers need excellent people skills. They use
expertise and persuasion to achieve coordination among various departments, and their
jobs involve getting people together, listening, building trust, confronting problems, and
resolving con icts and disputes in the best interest of the project and the organization.
Many organizations move to a stronger horizontal approach such as the use of
permanent teams, project managers, or process owners after going through a rede-
sign procedure called reengineering.
Reengineering
Reengineering, sometimes called business process reengineering, is the radical redesign
of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in cost, quality, service,
and speed.
58
Because the focus of reengineering is on process rather than function,
reengineering generally leads to a shift away from a strong vertical structure to one
emphasizing stronger horizontal coordination and greater exibility in responding to
changes in the environment.
Reengineering changes the way managers think about how work is done in their
organizations. Rather than focusing on narrow jobs structured into distinct, functional
departments, they emphasize core processes that cut horizontally across the company
and involve teams of employees working to provide value directly to customers.
59
A process is an organized group of related tasks and activities that work together
to transform inputs into outputs and create value. Common examples of processes
include new product development, order ful llment, and customer service.
60
Reengineering frequently involves a shift to a horizontal team-based structure,
as described earlier in this chapter. All the people who work on a particular process
have easy access to one another so they can easily communicate and coordinate their
efforts, share knowledge, and provide value to customers.
61
Consider how reengi-
neering at Alcoa’s Michigan Casting Center led to the formation of manufacturing
teams that became the fundamental organizational unit.
TakeaMoment
EXHIBIT 9.11 Example of Project Manager Relationships to Other Departments
r
r
r
r
r
ree
ngineerin
g
Th
e
r
a
d
i
c
a
l
r
r
r
re
e
d
r
esi
g
n of business processes t
o
o
o
a
a
a
ac
ch
ac
ch
a
iev
iev
ed
e
d
ram
ram
ati
ati
ci
c
i
mpr
mpr
ove
ove
men
men
ts
s
ts
s
i
i
in
n
n
i
n
n
cos
cos
t
t
,
qua
qua
lit
lit
y
y
,
ser
ser
vic
vic
e
e
,
and
and
s
s
s
sp
pe
sp
pe
s
ed
ed
.
p
p
p
p
pr
ocess An or
g
anized
g
roup
o
o
o
o
o
f r
e
l
ate
d
t
as
k
s
a
n
d
act
ivi
t
i
e
s
t
t
t
h
h
h
at wor
k
to
g
et
h
er to trans
f
or
m
m
m
m
m
i
i
in
n
n
n
puts into outputs an
d
create
v
v
v
v
va
va
al
v
v
ue
.
PART 4 ORGANIZING264
Michigan Casting Center (MCC) is now North America’s largest supplier of aluminum steer-
ing knuckles f
or automotive suspension systems. However, in the mid-1990s, quality and
delivery problems, combined with operational ineffi ciency and high turnover, almost put the
company under.
At the time, MCC was organized by function, with the manufacturing function built
around work processes that served all product lines, as illustrated in Part A of Exhibit 9.12.
No one had accountability for moving a product effi ciently through the entire manufacturing
process to the end customer. Managers operated in isolated silos, focused solely on their own
area of responsibility rather than the overall success of the manufacturing department.
A team of managers reengineered manufacturing to organize work around product
fl ow paths, as illustrated in Part B of Exhibit 9.12. The new organization created focus
and ownership at the product level by giving leaders responsibility and accountability
across all work processes related to a specifi c product. Support staff members were
assigned accountability for specifi c product lines, making them a part of the manufactur-
ing teams as well. Cell leaders were empowered to solve problems and make decisions,
leading to a deeper level of engagement, feeling of ownership, and sense of pride. Eventu-
ally, teams became capable of running the plant on their own, freeing managers to focus
on strategic issues.
Operational effi ciency, product quality, and delivery performance all improved dra-
matically under the reengineered system. For example, defective parts returned per million
decreased from more than 6,000 to around 20 four years later. And by synchronizing internal
activities, MCC was able to more effectively synchronize production with customers’ require-
ments. Giving employees expanded jobs, clearer accountability, and more autonomy led to
greater job satisfaction and commitment too. Voluntary turnover, which had been as high as
42 percent a year, decreased to around 4 percent.
62
As illustrated by this example, reengineering can lead to stunning results, but,
like all business ideas, it has its drawbacks. Organizations often have dif culty
realigning power relationships and management processes to support work rede-
sign, and thus may not reap the intended bene ts of reengineering. According
to some estimates, 70 percent of reengineering efforts fail to reach their intended
goals.
63
Because reengineering is expensive, time consuming, and usually painful
to implement, it seems best suited to companies that are facing serious competi-
tive threats.
As a potential new manager, check out your authority role models by completing the
New Manager Self-Test on page 266.
STRUC TURE FOLLOWS STRATEGY
Vertical hierarchies continue to thrive because they often provide important bene ts
for organizations, However, in today’s environment, organizations with stronger hor-
izontal designs typically perform better.
64
How do managers know whether to design
a structure that emphasizes the formal, vertical hierarchy or one with an emphasis on
horizontal communication and collaboration? The answer lies in the organization’s
strategic goals. The right structure is designed to t the organization’s strategy. A
recent study demonstrated that business performance is strongly in uenced by how
well the company’s structure is aligned with its strategic intent, so managers strive to
pick strategies and structures that are congruent.
65
As a new manager, understand how structure fi ts the organization’s strategic goals.
Design the right mix of structural characteristics to enable the organization to
effectively implement its strategy.
Michigan Casting
Center (Alcoa)
Innovative Way
TakeaMoment
TakeaMoment
CHAPTER 9 DESIGNING ADAPTIVE ORGANIZATIONS 265
4
Organizing
Work
Process
A
Work
Process
B
Area
Supervisor
Product #2
Product #3
Product #1
Work
Process
C
Manufacturing
Manager
a. Traditional Manufacturing Structure
Area
Supervisor
Area
Supervisor
Area
Supervisor
Area
Supervisor
Flow Path Manager 1
Work
Process
A
Work
Process
B
Work
Process
C
Flow Path Manager 2
Work
Process
A
Work
Process
B
Work
Process
C
Flow Path Manager 3
Work
Process
A
Work
Process
B
Work
Process
C
Manufacturing
Manager
b. Reengineered Structure
Product
#2
Product
#3
Product
#1
EXHIBIT 9.12 Reengineering Manufacturing at Michigan Casting Center
SOURCES: Dan Groszkiewicz and Brent Warren, “Alcoa’s Michigan Casting Center Runs the Business from the Bottom Up,” Journal of Organizational
Excellence (Spring 2006): 13–23. (used with permission).
In Chapter 7, we discussed several strategies that business rms can adopt. Two
strategies proposed by Porter are differentiation and cost leadership.
66
With a differen-
tiation strategy, the organization attempts to develop innovative products unique to the
market. With a cost leadership strategy, the organization strives for internal ef ciency.
PART 4 ORGANIZING266
Authority Role Models
An organization’s structure is based on author-
ity. Expectations about authority for a new man-
ager are often based on experiences in your fi rst
authority fi gures and role models—Mom and Dad.
To understand your authority role models, please
answer each of the following items as Mostly True
or Mostly False for you. Think about each state-
ment as it applies to the parent or parents who
made primary decisions about raising you.
Mostly
True
Mostly
False
1. My parent(s) believed
that children should get
their way in the family as
often as the parents do.
2. When a family policy
was established, my
parent(s) discussed the
reasoning behind it with
the children.
3. My parent(s) believed it
was for my own good if I
was made to conform to
what they thought was
right.
4. My parent(s) felt the
children should make up
our own minds about
what we wanted to do,
even if they did not
agree with us.
5. My parent(s) directed
my activities through
reasoning and
discussion.
6. My parent(s) was clear
about who was the boss
in the family.
7. My parent(s) allowed me
to decide most things
for myself without a lot
of direction.
8. My parent(s) took the
children’s opinions into
consideration when
making family decisions.
9. If I didn’t meet parental
rules and expectations,
I could expect to be
punished.
SCORING AND INTERPRETATION: Each ques-
tion pertains to one of three subscales of parental
authority. Questions 1, 4, and 7 refl ect permissive
parental authority, questions 2, 5, and 8 indicate
fl exible authority, and questions 3, 6, and 9 indi-
cate authoritarian parental authority. The subscale
for which you checked more items Mostly True
may reveal personal expectations from your early
role models that shape your comfort with author-
ity as a new manager. Authoritarian expectations
typically would fi t in a traditional vertical structure
with fi xed rules and a clear hierarchy of authority
(mechanistic organization characteristics). Flex-
ible authority expectations typically would fi t with
horizontal organizing, such as managing teams,
projects, and reengineering (organic organiza-
tion characteristics). Because most organizations
thrive on structure, permissive expectations may
be insuffi cient to enforce accountability under
any structure. How do you think your child-
hood role models affect your authority expecta-
tions? Remember, this questionnaire is just a
guide because your current expectations about
authority may not directly refl ect your childhood
experiences.
SOURCE: Adapted from John R. Buri, “Parental Authority
Questionnaire,” Journal of Personality and Social Assessment 57
(1991): 110–119.
New ManagerSelf-Test
CHAPTER 9 DESIGNING ADAPTIVE ORGANIZATIONS 267
4
Organizing
Typically, strategic goals of cost ef ciency occur in more stable environments
while goals of innovation and exibility occur in more uncertain environments. The
terms mechanistic and organic can be used to explain structural responses to strategy
and the environment.
67
Goals of ef ciency and a stable environment are associated
with a mechanistic system. This type of organization typically has a rigid, vertical,
centralized structure, with most decisions made at the top. The organization is highly
specialized and characterized by rules, procedures, and a clear hierarchy of authority.
With goals of innovation and a rapidly changing environment, however, the organi-
zation tends to be much looser, free- owing, and adaptive, using an organic system.
The structure is more horizontal, and decision-making authority is decentralized.
People at lower levels have more responsibility and authority for solving problems,
enabling the organization to be more uid and adaptable to changes.
68
Go to the experiential exercise on page 269 that pertains to organic versus
mechanistic structure.
Exhibit 9.13 shows a simpli ed continuum that illustrates how different struc-
tural approaches are associated with strategy and the environment. The pure func-
tional structure is appropriate for achieving internal ef ciency goals in a stable
environment. The vertical functional structure uses task specialization and a strict
chain of command to gain ef cient use of scarce resources, but it does not enable the
organization to be exible or innovative. In contrast, horizontal teams are appropri-
ate when the primary goal is innovation and the organization needs exibility to
cope with an uncertain environment. Each team is small, is able to be responsive,
and has the people and resources necessary for performing its task. The exible
horizontal structure enables organizations to differentiate themselves and respond
quickly to the demands of a shifting environment but at the expense of ef cient
resource use.
Exhibit 9.13 also illustrates how other forms of structure represent intermediate
steps on the organization’s path to ef ciency or innovation. The functional structure
with cross-functional teams and project managers provides greater coordination
and exibility than the pure functional structure. The divisional structure promotes
differentiation because each division can focus on speci c products and customers,
although divisions tend to be larger and less exible than small teams. Exhibit 9.13
does not include all possible structures, but it illustrates how structures can be used
to facilitate the organization’s strategic goals.
TakeaMoment
Mechanistic Organic
EXHIBIT 9.13 Relationship of Structural Approach to Strategy and the Environment
PART 4 ORGANIZING268
ch9
A MANAGER’S ESSENTIALS: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED?
▪ Fundamental characteristics of organization structure include work specializa-
tion, chain of command, authority and responsibility, span of management, and
centralization and decentralization. These dimensions represent the vertical hier-
archy and de ne how authority and responsibility are distributed.
▪ Another major concept is departmentalization, which describes how organization
employees are grouped. Three traditional approaches are functional, divisional,
and matrix; contemporary approaches are team and virtual network structures.
The functional approach groups employees by common skills and tasks. The
opposite structure is divisional, which groups people by organizational output
such that each division has a mix of functional skills and tasks. The matrix struc-
ture uses two chains of command simultaneously, and some employees have two
bosses. The team approach uses permanent teams and cross-functional teams
to achieve better coordination and employee commitment than is possible with
a purely functional structure. The network approach means that a rm concen-
trates on what it does best and subcontracts other functions to separate organiza-
tions that are connected to the headquarters electronically.
▪ Each organization form has advantages and disadvantages and can be used by
managers to meet the needs of the competitive situation. In addition, managers
adjust elements of the vertical structure, such as the degree of centralization or
decentralization, to meet changing needs.
▪ As organizations grow, they add new departments, functions, and hierarchical lev-
els. A major problem for management is how to tie the whole organization together.
Horizontal coordination mechanisms provide coordination across departments and
include reengineering, task forces, project managers, and horizontal teams.
▪ The correct structural approach is in uenced by the rm’s strategic goals. When
a rm’s strategy is to differentiate its products or services, an organic exible
structure using teams, decentralization, and empowered employees is appropri-
ate. A mechanistic structure is appropriate for a low-cost strategy, which typically
occurs in a stable environment. The structure needs to be looser and more exible
when environmental uncertainty is high.
1. Sandra Holt, manager of Electronics Assembly, asked
Hector Cruz, her senior technician, to handle things in
the department while Sandra worked on the budget.
She needed peace and quiet for at least a week to com-
plete her gures. After ten days, Sandra discovered
that Hector had hired a senior secretary, not realizing
that Sandra had promised interviews to two other
people. Evaluate Sandra’s approach to delegation.
2. Many experts note that organizations have been
making greater use of teams in recent years. What
factors might account for this trend?
3. An organizational consultant was heard to say,
“Some aspect of functional structure appears in
every organization.” Do you agree? Explain.
4. The divisional structure is often considered almost
the opposite of a functional structure. Do you
agree? Brie y explain the major differences in these
two approaches to departmentalization.
5. Some people argue that the matrix structure should
be adopted only as a last resort because the dual
chains of command can create more problems than
they solve. Discuss. Do you agree or disagree? Why?
6. What is the virtual network approach to structure?
Is the use of authority and responsibility different
compared with other forms of departmentaliza-
tion? Explain.
7. The Hay Group published a report that some man-
agers have personalities suited to horizontal rela-
tionships such as project management that achieve
results with little formal authority. Other managers
are more suited to operating roles with much for-
mal authority in a vertical structure. In what type
ch9
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
CHAPTER 9 DESIGNING ADAPTIVE ORGANIZATIONS 269
4
Organizing
of structure—functional, matrix, team, or virtual
network—do you believe your personality would
best t? Which structure would be the most chal-
lenging for you? Give your reasons.
8. Experts say that organizations are becoming increas-
ingly decentralized, with authority, decision-making
responsibility, and accountability being pushed far-
ther down into the organization. How will this trend
affect what will be asked of you as a new manager?
9. The chapter suggested that structure should be
designed to t strategy. Some theorists argue that
strategy should be designed to t the organiza-
tion’s structure. With which theory do you agree?
Explain.
10. Carnival Cruise Lines provides pleasure cruises to
the masses. Carnival has several ships and works
on high volume/low price rather than offering
luxury cruises. What would you predict about the
organization structure of a Carnival Cruise ship
compared with a company that had smaller ships
for wealthy customers?
ch9
MANAGEMENT IN PRACTICE: EXPERIENTIAL EXERCISE
Organic Versus Mechanistic Organization Structure
Interview an employee at your university, such as a
department head or secretary. Have the employee
answer the following 13 questions about his or her job
and organizational conditions. Then, answer the same
set of questions for a job you have held.
Disagree Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 Agree Strongly
1. Your work would be considered routine.
1 2 3 4 5
2. A clearly known way is established to do the
major tasks you encounter.
1 2 3 4 5
3. Your work has high variety and frequent exceptions.
1 2 3 4 5
4. Communications from above consist of infor-
mation and advice rather than instructions and
directions.
1 2 3 4 5
5. You have the support of peers and your supervi-
sor to do your job well.
1 2 3 4 5
6. You seldom exchange ideas or information with
people doing other kinds of jobs.
1 2 3 4 5
7. Decisions relevant to your work are made above
you and passed down.
1 2 3 4 5
8. People at your level frequently have to gure out
for themselves what their jobs are for the day.
1 2 3 4 5
9. Lines of authority are clear and precisely de ned.
1 2 3 4 5
10. Leadership tends to be democratic rather than
autocratic in style.
1 2 3 4 5
11. Job descriptions are written and up-to-date for
each job.
1 2 3 4 5
12. People understand each other’s jobs and often do
different tasks.
1 2 3 4 5
13. A manual of policies and procedures is available
to use when a problem arises.
1 2 3 4 5
Scoring and Interpretation
To obtain the total score, subtract the scores for ques-
tions 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 13 from the number 6 and
total the adjusted scores.
Total Score, Employee: ___________
Total Score, You: ___________
Compare the total score for a place you have worked
to the score of the university employee you interviewed.
A total score of 52 or above suggests that you or the
other respondent is working in an organic organization.
The score re ects a loose, exible structure that is often
associated with uncertain environments and small-batch
or service technology. People working in this structure
feel empowered. Many organizations today are moving
in the direction of exible structures and empowerment.
A score of 26 or below suggests a mechanistic
structure. This structure uses traditional control and
functional specialization, which often occurs in a cer-
tain environment, a stable organization, and routine
or mass-production technology. People in this struc-
ture may feel controlled and constrained.
Discuss the pros and cons of organic versus mech-
anistic structure. Does the structure of the employee
you interviewed t the nature of the organization’s
environment, strategic goals, and technology? How
about the structure for your own workplace? How
might you redesign the structure to make the work
organization more effective?