Organisational structures

1. The best of both worlds? Making the
most of an organisational structure
Melissa Bradley – University of Kent
Chloé Gallien – University of Kent

2. So who are we? (1)So who are we? (1)
• Melissa Bradley
– Faculty Administration Manager, University of
Kent
– Formerly Reading and Chester
– AUA Member since 2004, Board of Trustee since
2008 and Fellow (since April 2011)
– m.v.bradley@kent.ac.uk

3. So who are we? (2)So who are we? (2)
• Chloé Gallien
– Faculty Administration Manager, University of
Kent
– Most recently St Andrews
– AUA Member since 2010
– Assessor on Postgraduate Certificate in
Professional Practice (PgCert)
– c.gallien@kent.ac.uk

4. Before we start…Before we start…
• Please fill in your details
– Email addresses
– Name of institution
– Role
• So that we can send you revised presentation
• Thank you!

5. ContextContext
• Our roles were created in 2009 as a consequence of a
University wide administration review which recommended
that all academic administration services should be brought
together under one structure. Our remit is to ensure this
works.
• Between the three of us, we have worked in just under 20
different HEIs which all had different structures!
• Also, we have all either lead or been part of a fair few
organisational restructures

6. Research on structures
• Buchanan, D. and Hucznyski, A. (2010) Organizational Behaviour (7th ed). London: FT
Prentice Hall.
• Mabey, C., Salaman, G. and Storey, J. (1998) Human Resource Management: A Strategic
Introduction (2nd ed) Oxford: Blackwell. (This is the reference for the "yellow slide").
• Storey, J. (2005) “New organisational forms and their links with HR” in Storey, J., Salaman, G.
and Bilsberry, J. (eds) Strategic HRM Theory and Practice: a reader, (2nd ed), London, Open
University/Sage.
• Bunting, M. (2005) “Missionary Management” in Storey, J., Salaman, G. and Bilsberry, J. (eds)
Strategic HRM Theory and Practice: a reader, (2nd ed), London, Open University/Sage.
• McKenna, E and Beech, N. (2008) Human Resource Management, a concise analysis, (2nd
ed), London, FT Prentice Hall. Chs 3 and 5: Organisational Structure and Organisational
Culture respectively.
• A comparative Study of University Systems by Hazel Glover:
http://www.mrl.nott.ac.uk/~hazel/documents/Submission/final%20PHD%20document/ABSTRACT.h

7. Centralised/DecentralisedCentralised/Decentralised
SpectrumSpectrum
• Concentration/dispersion of authority and responsibility for
decision-making
• Restructure drivers
– Expansion (ex: Motorolla)
– Change of priority (ex: Microsoft)
– Symbolic move
• Many forms of hybrid structures

8. Centralised/DecentralisedCentralised/Decentralised
SpectrumSpectrum
• What about your institution?
• Strengths/limitations of each type of
structure?

9. CentralisedCentralised
Strengths
 Greater control by senior
management team
 Clear alignment to strategic
objectives
 Allows economies of scale and
synergies
 More cost effective
 Fewer skilled/highly paid managers
 Less reporting procedures
 Consistency and standardised
approaches
 More effective co-ordination
 Compliance
 Easier communication
 Enables in-depth specialist and
functional expertise and skill
development
Limitations
 Decisions piles up on top (hierarchy
overload)
 Key decision makers removed from
business operations
 Poor horizontal coordination among
departments and /or empire building
 Fragmentation of processes
 Less innovation
 Risk of limited engagement

10. DecentralisedDecentralised
Strengths
 Decisions made faster, at point of
action, by more junior staff
 Work-load spread allowing top-level
mangers more time for strategic
thinking
 Fosters entrepreneurial, innovative
and creative spirit
 Enables evaluation of contributions
of various activities
 Motivates staff entrusted to make
decisions
 Facilitates development of both
specialists and generalists
 Facilitates high coordination across
functions within units
 Allows units to adapt to differences
 Responsive to client needs
 Allows fast change in unstable
environment
 Localised Processes
Limitations
 Lack of control by senior
management team
 Slow response time to organisational
changes
 Risk of conflict between units and
corporate departments
 Poor horizontal coordination
between units
 Silo mentality affects view of
organizational goals
 Less efficient and more costly
 Risk of inconsistencies across units
 Risk of less dissemination and sharing
of good practice
 Localised Processes

11. Central Services
Marketing Finance Human
Resources
Student Records
& Examinations
Timetable
Office
De-centralised Services
Head of
School
Head of
School
Head of
School
Head of
School
Head of
School
University of Kent AdminUniversity of Kent Admin
- Before- Before
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin

12. Central Services
Marketing Finance Human
Resources
Academic
Division
Estates
De-centralised Services
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
School
Admin
University of Kent AdminUniversity of Kent Admin
- After- After
Faculty Administration
Manager

13. Overcoming limitations:Overcoming limitations:
Possible SolutionsPossible Solutions
• At Kent e.g. overcoming silos
 Management Team meetings
 Specialised Forums
 Special Interest Groups
 Faculty all administration staff networking events
 Divisional Leadership Staff Development Programme
 Mentors from across Faculties
 “Fresh pair of eyes” scheme
• Group Work

14. In conclusion…In conclusion…
• Important to identify prevalent structure/s
within your home institution
• Identify main strengths and limitations
• Build on strengths
• Find creative solutions to overcome
limitations
Thank you!Thank you!

15. Feedback