Since McKinley’s et al. call for more study on organisational pitfalls, research in this area has been on a rise (91). The literature on its causes, however, remains dispersed. Nevertheless, the structure of an organisation is at the very top of this list since it is an essential roadmap of any business communication pattern, and no single model is suitable for all companies. An entity has to evaluate its strategy/mission and build a proper roadmap that will work for them. This paper critiques the different types of organisational structures while at the same time comparing and contrasting their core principles.
Competing Models of Organisational Structure
As it has been already established, no single corporate structure is fit for all of the enterprises. Thus, it is imperative to select an appropriate organisational structure that will best suit a company’s vision, mission, and strategy. According to Harper (20), the design is the reason why businesses are referred to as an organisation, and every business is unique. The author goes further to indicate the different types of the framework that a company may choose from Line, Functional, Line and Staff, Matrix, and Project approaches (Harper 33). However, according to Epstein (236), an entity could also opt to select an existing structure and further modify it to make it more suitable for it.
Principles of Line Organisation
The Line type of structure is the oldest and the simplest form where the command flows vertically and directly from the top managerial ranking downwards. Doroshenko et al. (253) suggest that the line design identifies responsibility, authority, and accountability at every level. What is more, the authors further add that the personnel under this design are directly involved in achieving the set business’ objectives (Doroshenko et al. 253). According to Daft (146), despite being so simple to understand and operate, the model under consideration is very inflexible and rigid. In addition to being adamant, the researcher also hints that there is a strong tendency for the authority to become dictatorial (Daft 146).
Line and Staff Design
Another type is the Line and Staff Organisation. This approach is mostly applied in the large firms where the functional experts are introduced to the structural design. According to Allen et al. (231), this structure offers numerous benefits such as offering adequate opportunities for advancement of the employees, creating sufficient balance among various business activities as well as providing the staff services with the training grounds for the different positions. However, there is likelihood that the personnel will demand higher payments; they could also be much more theoretical than practical since they are much more educated. Therefore, this design is not only more expensive, but also the workers will not be able to carry out its recommendation or plan because the approach lacks the authority. In turn, this lack of action reduces the productivity of the organisational structure (Allen et al. 231).
Functional Organisation
Thirdly, there is the Functional structure that was evolved by F. Taylor (Ferleger and Lavallee 1). He suggested dividing the roles between eight supervisors so that each man from the assistant manager downwards may have a few roles as possible to complete. Unlike in the line structural design, in the functional one, each member not only receives orders from one superior but also from a group of experts as well. Similarly, it is divergent from the line and staff organisational structure where the employees have no opportunity to implement their recommendations without consultation; notably, those operating under the functional model are accustomed the power to select and to implement the recommendations although in a confined way (Daft 147).
What is more, according to Harper (21), these principles of the functional organisation structure enhances the quality of products and services since it encourages specialisation. Additionally, it not only leads to standardisation and mass production, but it further increases the work satisfaction for the experts who presumably do what they love (Harper 21). However, seeing that there is no direct supervisor of the employees, not only does it become very hard to attain coordination in a functional organisational structure, but it is also tough to achieve discipline, as a result leading to the low morale among workers. Nonetheless, since control and authority is divided, neither critical actions nor decisions may be taken immediately, thereby, potentially causing delays and wastage of time. Furthermore, as there are many foremen of equal rank in the same department, leadership conflicts become inevitable (Allen et al. 231).
Project Design
The other architectural type of structure is the Project Organisation. According to Muller (167), these models are temporarily formed for a particular project to achieve its goals and objectives within a specific period. The design is created with the aim of dealing with the shortcomings of functional organisation structure such as delay in decision-making, an absence of unity of command, and lack of coordination. As such, specialists from different departments are drawn to work together, thus enhancing cooperation. Additionally, the project organisation is not only an excellent illustration of the relationship between strategy, structure, and environment, but also the grouping of activities introduces new patterns of authority, thereby, eliminating leadership conflicts that are prudent in the functional structure.
However, in spite of making meaningful fixation and control of individual responsibility, due to the different environment of the specialists commissioned to the project, this design not only makes it difficult to supervise and motivate the staff, but it also leads to lagging in project completion. These delays may be attributed to frequent misunderstandings between the experts since they come from different departments and are yet to develop a working relationship with each other. This model is most suitable in cases where the company is doing a one-time project such as construction or installation of IT systems.
Matrix
The final type of structural architecture is the Matrix Organisation. It is imperative for any business to embrace innovation if at all it is to grow. Various scholars discussed a suitable organisational structure for modernisation activities, and according to Saunila et al. (28), the matrix design is widely seen as the most sufficient for these activities. They argue that it is because the approach aims at capturing both the specialisation and efficiency of a functional design while focusing on the client and the flexibility of an entity (Saunila et al. 29).
Additionally, the matrix organisational structure has two chains of command, one of which is horizontally characterised by the project team which is led by an expert in one’s allocated area of specialisation. Additionally, the second is functional in that the flow of authority moves in the upward to downward direction just like it is in the line design. Furthermore, since there is both the vertical and horizontal communication, the matrix organisational structure enhances the coordination which in turn translates to higher and more effective control.
However, despite its flexibility and focusing of organisational resources to a specified endeavour, the two chains of command increase paperwork and the overall costs of operation. Moreover, the matrix design makes it difficult to achieve a balance between the project’s administrative and technical aspects. Therefore, just like in the line and staff organisational structure, since there is more than one supervisor for each worker, there are increased conflicts and confusion which reduces the effective control in running the organisation. In turn, it leads to diminished quality and inefficiency. According to Meyer (1), Starbucks, the most renowned coffeehouse chain globally, uses the matrix organisational design. This company has evolved to have a unique corporate architecture that blends with its current business needs. The main features of its organisational design include functional, geographic, and product-based divisions and the workforce. In 2008, the business changed its approach to switch the focus back to the customer experience by establishing new regional divisions and giving better training to personnel at Starbucks (Meyer 1).
Conclusion
Ultimately, an organisation’s design may be so entrenched that it attains an air of permanence. However, in reality, the structures change as the enterprise does, as illustrated in the case of Starbucks Coffeehouse (Meyer 1). It is evident that the organisational model plays a critical role in the success of a business, and thus, the importance of the company’s architecture cannot be overemphasised. This paper identified the principle functions of how the aforementioned structures operate, and it is clear that none of these designs lacks drawbacks. However, it is imperative for a company to weigh the benefits of each corporate approach in line with its strategy, vision, and mission. In so doing, an enterprise will select the most appropriate organisational model to work with, thereby, significantly increasing its probability of success and growth.
Additionally, another very crucial aspect to consider is modifying these corporate structures to suit the business correctly. As already established, since every company is unique, no single organisational structure can satisfy an enterprise entirely. Therefore, some modification will be required. When implementing these changes, it is imperative to assess the built-in weaknesses of each structure and the company’s shortcomings against the proposed model concerning the business’ objective.
Works Cited
Allen, Robert W., Lyman W. Porter, and H. L. Angle. Organisational Influence Processes. Routledge, 2016.
Daft, Richard L. Organisation Theory and Design. Cengage Learning, 2015.
Doroshenko, Yury, et al. “Organisational Structure Design of Controlling Investment and Innovation Processes in the Subjects of Small Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Applied Engineering Science, vol. 13, no. 4, 2015, pp. 251-256.
Epstein, Marc J. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts. Routledge, 2018.
Ferleger, Louis A., and Matthew Lavallee. “Taylor’s World Revisited.” Business History Conference. Business and Economic History On-line: Papers Presented at the BHC Annual Meeting. Vol. 13, Business History Conference, 2015.
Harper, Charles. Organisations: Structures, Processes and Outcomes. Routledge, 2015.
McKinley, William, Scott Latham, and Michael Braun. “Organisational Decline and Innovation: Turnarounds and Downward Spirals.” Academy of Management Review, vol. 39, no. 1, 2014, pp. 88-110.
Meyer, Pauline. Starbucks Coffee Company’s Organisational Structure. Panmore Institute, 2015.
Muller, Ralf. Project Governance. Routledge, 2017.
Saunila, Minna, Martti Mäkimattila, and Juho Salminen. “Matrix Structure for Supporting Organisational Innovation Capability.” International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, vol. 8, no. 1, 2014, pp. 20-35.
