Since Alexander’s call for more study on organisational pitfalls, investigations in this area has been on a steady rise (Alexander, 2014). The literature on the causes of business failure remains dispersed. However, the structure of an organization is at the very top of this list since it is an essential roadmap of any business communication pattern, and no single structure is suitable for every company. A business has to evaluate its strategy and mission and then build a proper roadmap that will work for them from there. This paper critiques the different types of organisational structures, while at the same time comparing and contrasting their principles.
Competing Models of Organisational Structure
As already established, no single corporate structure is fit for every enterprise. Thus, it is imperative to select an enterprise design that best suits 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. He goes further to indicate the different types of the framework that a company may choose from Line, Functional, Line and Staff, Matrix, and Project organisations (Harper 33). However, according to Epstein (236), a company may select an existing structure and 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, they add that the personnel under this design are directly involved in achieving the business’s objective. According to Daft (146), despite being so simple to understand and operate, the structure is very inflexible and rigid. In addition to being adamant, Daft also hints that there is a tendency for the authority to become dictatorial (Daft 146).
Line and Staff Design
Another type is the Line and Staff Organisation. This is mostly found in 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 providing adequate opportunities for advancement of workers, creating sufficient balance among various business activities, and the staff services provide training grounds for the different positions. However, since the staff demand higher payments and they may be much more theoretical than practical since they are much more educated this design is not only more expensive, but also the workers cannot carry out its recommendation or plan since it 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 such 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 worker not only receives orders from one superior but also from a group of experts as well. Similarly, unlike in the line and staff organisational structure where the employees have no might implement their recommendations without consultation, those in the functional organisation are accustomed the power to select and to implement recommendations although in a confined way (Daft 147).
What is more, according to Harper (21), these principles of functional organisation structure enhances the quality of products and services since it encourages specialisation. Additionally, this not only lead to standardisation and mass production, but it also increases work satisfaction for specialists 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 also it is tough to achieve discipline, in such a way resulting to low morale to workers. Nonetheless, since control and authority is divided, neither critical actions nor decisions may be taken immediately, thereby leading to 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 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 overwhelming 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 coordination. 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, thus 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 design 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. Previous scholars discussed a suitable organisational structure for modernization activities, and according to Saunila et al. (28), the matrix design is widely seen as the most sufficient for these activities. They argue that this is because the matrix aims at capturing both the specialisation and efficiency of a functional design while focusing on the client and the flexibility of an organisation (Saunila et al. 28).
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 his allocated area of specialisation. And 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 increased and more effective control.
However, despite its flexibility and focusing of organisational resources to a specified endeavor, 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. And 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, this leads to reduced 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, product-based divisions, and the workforce. In 2008, the business changed its structure to switch the focus back to the customer experience by establishing new regional divisions and giving better training to the workforce at Starbucks (Meyer 1).
Conclusion
Ultimately, an organisation’s design may be so entrenched that it attains an air of permanence. However, in reality, structures change as the enterprise does, as illustrated in the case of Starbucks coffeehouse (Meyer 1). It is evident that the organisation structure 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 these organisational 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 design in line with its strategy, vision, and mission. In so doing, an enterprise will select the most appropriate organisational architecture to work with, thus significantly increasing its probability of success and growth.
Additionally, another very crucial thing is in modifying these corporate structures to suit the business correctly. As already established, since every company is unique, no one organisational structure can satisfy an enterprise entirely. Therefore, some modification will be required. When doing these changes, it is imperative to assess the built in weaknesses of each structure, and the company's shortcomings against the proposed structure concerning the business's 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.
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.
