Organizations normally serve a specific societal function or an enduring need of the society. Astute top level managers build on the professed societal contribution of the organization by relating specific organizational tasks and activities to higher purposes. By contributing to the larger society, organizations gain legitimacy, a social right to operate, and more discretion for their nonsocietal goals and operating practices.
Organizations that can more effectively translate the positive character of their societal contribution into a favorable image have an advantage over firms that neglect this sense of purpose. Executives who link their firm to a desirable mission can lay claim to important motivational tools that are based on a shared sense of noble purpose. Some executives and consultants talk of a “strategic vision” that links highly desirable and socially appealing goals to the contributions a firm intends to make. The first step is a clear and compelling mission statement.
For some corporations, answering the question of which business they are in may yield a more detailed statement concerning their products and services. These product and service goals provide an important basis for judging the firm.
Systems goals represent short-term organizational characteristics that higher-level managers wish to promote. Systems goals often must be balanced against one another. For instance, a productivity and efficiency drive, if taken too far, may reduce the
flexibility of an organization even in a downturn.
Systems goals are important to firms because they provide a roadmap that helps them link together various units of their organization to assure survival. Well-defined systems goals are practical and easy to understand; they focus the manager’s attention on what needs to be done. Accurately stated systems goals also offer managers flexibility in devising ways to meet important targets. They can be used to balance the demands, constraints, and opportunities facing the firm. Recent research suggests incorporating integrity and ethics into the desired system goals characteristics.
Systems goals are important to firms because they provide a roadmap that helps them link together various units of their organization to assure survival.
The pattern selected provides the organization with specific strengths to reach toward some goals more than others. Traditionally, the formal structure of the firm has also been called the division of labor. Some still use this terminology to isolate decisions concerning formal structure from choices regarding the division of markets and/or technology.
Top managers or senior executives plan the overall strategy of the organization and plot its long-term future.
They also act as final judges for internal disputes and certify promotions, reorganizations, and the like. Middle managers guide the daily operations of the organization, help formulate policy, and translate top-management decisions into more specific guidelines for action.
Although an organization chart may clearly indicate who reports to whom, it is also important to recognize that it does not show how work is completed, who exercises the most power over specific issues, or how the firm will respond to its environment. An organization chart is just the beginning to understanding how a firm organizes its work. In firms facing constant change, the formal chart may be quickly out of date. However, organization charts can be important to the extent that they accurately represent the “chain of command.”
Figure 16.1
The figure presents a partial organization chart for a large university. The total chart allows university employees to locate their positions in the structure and to identify the lines of authority linking them with others in the organization. For instance, in this figure, the treasurer reports to the vice president of administration, who, in turn, reports to the president of the university.
Internal line units - Transform raw materials and information into products and services (production department).
External line units - Maintain outside linkages (marketing department).
Internal staff units - Assist the line units in performing their functions (accounting department).
External staff units - Assist the line units by linking the firm to its environment and in buffering internal operations (public relations).
In Figure 16.1, the Legislative Liaison unit is external staff, with a line relationship to the office of the VP for External Affairs.
Output controls are popular because they promote flexibility and creativity as well as facilitate dialogue concerning corrective action. Reliance on outcome controls separates what is to be accomplished from how it is to be accomplished.
Few organizations run on outcome controls alone. Once a solution to a problem is found and successfully implemented, managers do not want the problem to recur, so they institute process controls.
Rules, procedures, and policies are often employed as substitutes for direct managerial supervision. Under the guidance of written rules and procedures, the organization can specifically direct the activities of many individuals. It can ensure virtually identical treatment across even distant work locations.
Beyond substituting for direct management supervision, formalization is often used to simplify jobs. Written instructions allow individuals with less training to perform comparatively sophisticated tasks. Written procedures may also be available to ensure that a proper sequence of tasks is executed, even if this sequence is performed only occasionally.
Standardization involves the creation of guidelines so that similar work activities are repeatedly performed in a similar fashion. Such standardized methods may come from years of experience in dealing with typical situations, or they may come from outside training.
Greater centralization is often adopted when the firm faces a single major threat to its survival.
Organizing work is formally known as horizontal departmentation. This aspect of the organization is also called
departmentation. Whatever is divided up horizontally in two or more departments must also be integrated.
Figure 16.3
The figure summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the functional pattern.
A divisional pattern is often used to meet diverse external threats and opportunities.
Figure 16.4
As shown in the figure, the major advantages of the divisional pattern are its flexibility in meeting external demands, spotting external changes, integrating specialized individuals deep within the organization, and focusing on the delivery of specific products to specific customers.
The key disadvantage of the matrix method is the loss of unity of command. Individuals can be unsure as to what their jobs are, whom they report to for specific activities, and how various managers are to administer the effort. It can also be a very expensive method because it relies on individual managers to coordinate efforts deep within the firm.
Despite these limitations, the matrix structure provides a balance between functional and divisional concerns. Many problems can be resolved at the working level, where the balance among technical, cost, customer, and organizational concerns can be dealt with.
Coordination is needed at all levels of management, not just across a few scattered units. Much of the coordination
within a unit is handled by its manager. Smaller organizations may rely on their management hierarchy to provide the necessary consistency and integration. As the organization grows, however, managers become overloaded.
There is a wide variety of personal methods of coordination. Perhaps the most popular is direct contact between and among organizational members. As new information technologies have moved into practice, the potential for developing and maintaining effective contact networks has expanded.
Impersonal coordination methods are often refinements and extensions of process controls with an emphasis on formalization and standardization. Larger organizations often have written policies and procedures, such as schedules, budgets, and plans that are designed to mesh the operations of several units into a whole by providing predictability and consistency.
Weber argued that the rational and logical idea of bureaucracy, like a ‘well oiled machine’, was superior to building a firm based on charisma or cultural tradition.
The mechanistic design results in a management emphasis on routine for efficiency. Firms often used this design in pursuing a strategy of becoming a low cost leader.
While the divisions may be treated as separate businesses, they often share a similar mission and systems goals.
The conglomerate type also simultaneously illustrates three important points: (1) All structures are combinations of the basic elements; (2) there is no one best structure—it all depends on a number of factors such as the size of the firm, its environment,
its technology, and, of course, its strategy; and (3) The firm does not stand alone but is part of a larger network of firms that competes against other networks.