Bureaucratic Structure

By: Brittany Ziegelbaur

If you’re anything like me, you have no idea what “Bureaucratic Structure” refers to in terms of Organizational Structure.  To clear things up, I did a little bit of research to find out what it is and how it works!

To start things off, bureaucratic structures in the business world “are designed for efficiency and rely on high levels of work specialization, formalization, centralization of authority, rigid and well-defined chains of command, and relatively narrow spans of control” (Colquitt, Lepine, & Wesson, 2011).  To create an effective bureaucratic structure, there are several different aspects that have to go into implementing the “plan” to make it work.  One of the main components of the “plan” is work division.  By using work divisions, the company is able create differentiation between different jobs to get more accomplished.  Work division allows jobs to get done at different times, which in return allows tasks to be accomplished in a logical sequence (Graham Astley, 1985).  Being able to complete the tasks one at a time makes the work get done more effectively.  Employee’s can concentrate on getting the job done correctly rather than rushing to have the job done immediately, like in the past (Graham Astley, 1985). 

To help fill the gaps of work divisions, businesses implement Hierarchical Shape into the structural plan.  A hierarchy in a business is basically what determines how authoritative an employee is over other employees in the business.  Large scale administrators in the business are to coordinate the work and tasks for the other personnel in the business (Marriner, 1997).  By using this technique, the business is able to split the company up into work groups that are ranked on a hierarchical scale.  The employees are grouped together based on the tasks they are working on with the use of job division (Graham Astley, 1985).  This can help to ensure that all employees are staying on schedule and in a logical sequence for completing all of the necessary tasks.  Research has shown that a typical business or company has about seven to eight levels of hierarchy that they split their employees into (Graham Astley, 1985).  Blow is an example of implementing a Hierarchical Shape into a hospital (Marriner, 1997).

Another important element of a Bureaucratic Structure is Administrative Intensity.  For this type of business structure, it is particularly important that there is a supervisor to administer all of the different levels of the hierarchy within the business.  In smaller businesses, the supervisor will do more than just administer the company; they will also help to accomplish tasks within the different departments or divisions of the company (Graham Astley, 1985).  Supervisors of a company typically take on the role of “defining, guiding, and executing tasks” (Graham Astley, 1985).   As I mentioned before, the supervisor will also take on the roles of helping to execute specific tasks.  These tasks are typically extremely important jobs that the company needs to complete.  While working on these tasks, the supervisor will usually be the “expert” that helps other employees learn the proper techniques for completion (Graham Astley, 1985).  It is also important for a supervisor or administrator of the company to be available to all of the employees as much as possible; to assist on whatever is needed.  This is why there are typically a lot of administrators and supervisors within a company, which ensures that the task are being completed effectively. 

To help maintain the Administrative Intensity, businesses with Bureaucratic Structures use Mechanisms of Control.  There are two main focuses for administrators under these Mechanisms of Control.  These include surveillance and direction, and appraisal and discipline (Graham Astley, 1985).  We will first start out by discussing surveillance and direction.  This means that the administrators are to watch over the employees, or specific group of employees, to ensure that their work is being accomplished.  The direction part refers to teaching and administering the employees with the proper techniques to accomplish the job correctly (Graham Astley, 1985).  The appraisal and discipline components of control deal with actually observing the employees.  While administering the employees, the supervisors evaluate them on their performance as a whole (Graham Astley, 1985).  This means efficiency, effectiveness, and how they perform overall as an employee of the business.  The discipline aspect refers to both punishments and rewards (Graham Astley, 1985).  The administrators and supervisors can reward their employees for performing at exceptionally high levels, or even discipline them for not properly completing a task. 

Although bureaucratic structures do seem to be heavily controlled by upper administration, it has actually been found in a study that a structured organization positively correlates with the job satisfaction of the individual employees.  This particular study found that higher levels of job autonomy and lower levels of job ambiguity result in high levels of satisfaction at the work place (Finlay, Martin, Roman, & Blum, 1995).  The three characteristics that were looked at were job variety, job ambiguity, and job autonomy (Finlay et al., 1995).  Even though they are under great control in a bureaucratic structure, individual employees have felt high job satisfaction while working for these companies. 

So, bureaucratic structures are actually not that much different than what you think of for a typical business.  They first start out with creating divisions of work within their company, to effectively split up the tasks into a logical sequence for the jobs to be completed.  To keep closely related tasks on a level playing field, the businesses create a hierarchical shape for the company so that employees working on similar tasks are working close together.  To keep control and over look all aspects of the company, there are defined administrators and supervisors that are in charge of all the different divisions of the business.  The administrators have mechanisms of control that they typically follow to keep good surveillance and control of the company as a whole.  So, now that you have an overview of bureaucratic structures, you will know what to potentially expect when entering into the business world. 

References

Colquitt, J., Lepine, J., Wesson, M.  (2011).  Organizational Behavior: Improving Performance and Commitment in the Workplace.  New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Finlay, W., Martin, J., Roman, P., and Blum, T.  (1995).  Organizational Structure and Job Satisfaction: Do Bureaucratic Organizations Produce more Satisfied Employees?.  Administration and Society, 27(3).  (427-450).  http://aas.sagepub.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/content/27/3/427.full.pdf+html

Graham Astley, W.  (1985).  Organizational Size and Bureaucratic Structure.  Organization Studies, 6(3).  (201-228).  http://oss.sagepub.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/content/6/3/201.full.pdf+html

Marriner, A.  (1997).  Organization Process and Bureaucratic Structure.  Supervisor Nurse, 8(7).  (54-59).  http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.huaryu.kl.oakland.edu/sp-3.8.1a/ovidweb.cgi?WebLinkFrameset=1&S=PDFKFPCPINDDDJHNNCOKPDFBDMCIAA00&returnUrl=ovidweb.cgi%3fMain%2bSearch%2bPage%3d1%26S%3dPDFKFPCPINDDDJHNNCOKPDFBDMCIAA00&directlink=http%3a%2f%2fgraphics.tx.ovid.com%2fovftpdfs%2fFPDDNCFBPDHNIN00%2ffs046%2fovft%2flive%2fgv025%2f00007699%2f00007699-197707000-00009.pdf&filename=Organizational+Process+and+Bureaucratic+Structure.&navigation_links=NavLinks.S.sh.18.1&link_from=S.sh.18%7c1&pdf_key=FPDDNCFBPDHNIN00&pdf_index=/fs046/ovft/live/gv025/00007699/00007699-197707000-00009&link_set=S.sh.18%7C1%7Csl_10%7CresultSet%7CS.sh.18.19%7C0

Simple Structure

By: Xi Chen

Simple Structure

What is simple structure? 
Simple structures are the most common form of organizational design, mainly because there are more small organizations than large ones. These structures have a low degree of departmentalization and also a wide span of control. This is not substantial enough to have the high degree of formalization and only have the very basic differences in work specialization. The authority of this small group is largely centralized in one person. Generally, simple structures have only two or three levels, the flexible set of employees and the person who has the power of decision-making. This simple structure is predominantly used in small business settings in which manager and owner happen to be the same person. However, as far as the business grows, the coordinating efforts on the part of the owner or manager will become more complex. 

What are the advantages of Simple Structure? 
Its advantage is simplicity. This will make the small group of people more responsive, fast, accountable and easy to maintain. The simple structure is becoming more and more popular because of its flexibility, responsiveness and high degree of adaptability to change. Also, in a simple organizational structure, decisions often occur quickly because owners and managers have knowledge about the entire business, so the problems will be solved both easily and quickly. "Owners and managers can also choose what products to produce or the business relationships that will best advance the company's mission"(Daniella). There exist advantages and of course disadvantages, so what are the disadvantages of Simple Structure? Daniella said that the small businesses or other organizations operating under a simple organizational structure may find it difficult to run operations in the absence of the owner or primary manager. It may be difficult to get timely feedback on complex business operations in this structure. However, employees may not understand their responsibilities because of lack of specialization.

What is the general applicability of simple structure? 
"The simple structure is most widely practiced in smaller businesses, in which the coordination of work can be effectively structured around a narrow set of activities and decision makers, who are able to coordinate activities quickly and effectively" (Sree, 2008). When the size of the company and the environmental complexity increase, the top of the simple structure will get overloaded with the information. "The information overload will compromise the effectiveness of the decision-making performed at the organizational top. It will also make the organization slower in its adaptation to new situations" (Sree, 2008). The growing companies need to specialize in the changing and dynamic environments, they have to specialize and formalize their own organizational structures, so like Sree said, the work must not be as heavily coordinated by the organizational top (Sree, 2008). Indeed, companies need to divide the goals into subtasks and employ the proficient employees to responsible for the given subtask previously handled by the company owner. Finally, companies have to decentralize some of the decision-making power to lower level employees of the organization, so that the decisions will be made by people responsible for the subtask, and who control specific knowledge and information about the handling of the given subtask.

There are many other forms of simple structures that are very familiar, like Line commodity simple organizational structures, Division-style simple organizational structures, and Flat structures. Line commodity simple organizational structures have various lines for entire business activities. For example, different lines exist for widgets, cogs, and screws, produced by a single manufacturer. Below the director or manager position reside all other employees. Division-style simple organizational structures are almost the most common constitutional structure for smaller businesses. Owners can transform or alter the company impartially and simply, as no units stand in the way of shifting branches or combining them with one another. In fact, there is much more owner control in this exceedingly flat organizational structure. Because these organizations have hardly any administrators other than the owners, Flat structures are usually common in small firms. This oversimplified structure allows for reductive bureaucracy and more information for the owner. This form also helps to improve the firm's consciousness of the marketplace and restraint clamping operations with plenty of servants. 

Last but also important, the characteristic of simple structure can best be defined by what it is not rather than by what it is. The simple structure is not complicated. It has a low degree of departmentalization, wide spans of control authority centralized in a single person and little formalization. "The simple structure is a 'flat' organization it usually has only two or three vertical a loose body of employees and one individual in whom the decision authority is centralized". (Sree, 2008)

References

Alexis. Different Types of Organizational Structure. Retrieved from:http://smallbusiness.chron.com/different-types-organizational-structure-723.html

Daniella, L. The Simple Structure of an Organization. Retrieved from:
http://www.ehow.com/facts_7215856_simple-structure-organization.html 

Sree, R.R(2008) The simple structure and bureaucracy Retrieved from:
http://www.citeman.com/3954-the-simple-structure-and-bureaucracy.html 

Organizational Design

By: Joe Iaconis

Organizational Design

As defined in Organizational Behavior by Jason A. Colquitt, Jeffery A. Lepine, and Michael J. Wesson, Organizational design is the process of creating, selecting, or changing the structures of an organization.  No organization should ever let an organizational structure design itself.  The organizational design structure needs to be designed to fit the specific needs of the organization to be a sufficient system.  With a lack of productive planning, some organizations fall into a trap where the organizational structure designs itself on accident.  If that is the case, the organization is forced to implement a system immediately to would be a major improvement. The authors also state that there are a number of factors that influence the process of organizational design.  Those factors include the environment in which the organization does business, its strategy and technology, and the size of the firm.

Characteristics of Mechanistic vs. Organic Structures

The authors of Organizational Behavior provide a table that shows the differences between the mechanistic structured organizations and the organic structured organizations.  The table provides a lot of information that can be summed up by stating that mechanistic organizations have a narrow mind as far as performing tasks, where as organic organizations have a broad view of their tasks. Mechanistic organizations also have strict authoritative guidelines whereas organic organizations are more open as far as sharing of responsibilities. Although organic organizations still have chain-of-command, it is more loosely associated with authority.  Management handles almost all of the decisions in a mechanistic structure as well; employees are not to make decisions on their own without a manager’s consent.  As many would assume, the organic is more free-spirited when it comes to decision-making.  If you feel like the decision is right and appropriate, then you are encouraged to make the logical decision.  The passing of information is all done through the chain of command in the mechanistic organization.  Information goes from the employee up to the supervisor and then the supervision disperses the information.  Organic organizations are more based on advice and information sharing on all levels.  Finally, the knowledge and expertise of the employees of a mechanistic organization is, what the authors call, “firm specific”.  In other words, specialization is key.  On the flip side, in organic organizations “employees are encouraged to develop knowledge and expertise outside of their specialization”.  What this table is explaining is that, mechanistic organizations are bureaucratic and organic organizations are not as structured and more creative.

The Academy of Management Review

While doing research I found a lengthy article from The Academy of Management Review.  The author discussed organizational structure and design and confirmed that an organizations design is never truly set in stone, it is always changing and updating itself.  Comparing it to technology would be sufficient (Tushman, 1978). Once you buy a laptop at a top retailer, within months, your product is out of date.  The same goes for organizational structure and design.  As your organization’s products and systems change, your organizational structure and design does as well.  The article also talks about the basic goal of any organization, which is to determine the best organizational structures and designs that are best and most effective depending on the situations that the organization may face (Tushman, 1978).

Organizational Structure

Continuing my research, I stumbled upon another article that agreed and elaborated on the notion of how organizations need to implement the right structure and design to suit their needs (Scott, 1975).  The article states that the better suited the structure is for the organization, the longer the structure will last and the most beneficial it will be for the organization.  Which for lack of a better word is common sense.  One of the headings stuck out to me, “Structure is a Dependent Variable” and it truly is.  Setting a structure up before you set boundaries and determine your organizations main goals could lead to a quick switch in structures (Scott, 1975).

Designing an Effective Organization Structure

I stumbled upon a very well thought-out PowerPoint presentation on Designing an Effective Organizational Structure.  The main point I wanted to touch on is what seems to be a very effective wheel so to speak that shows the steps of designing an organizational structure.  The first step involves leadership.  Essentially, laying out the determinants of the structure and your goals as an organization. In other words, step one is a very rough draft.  The second step is decision-making and structure, followed by people, and work processes and systems.  All four of those revolve around culture (The Bridgespan Group, 2009).  The culture is how the organization is centered around.  They also mention at the end of the PowerPoint a quote that I feel resonates well with this topic as far as organizational structure.  The quote is “Just because you can change the organization’s structure, doesn’t mean that you should” (The Bridgespan Group, 2009).

Conclusion

After doing my research I’ve come to find a few things in particular that I plan to use in the workforce now and in the future.  Seeing the differences in the strategy and designs, I’ve decided that I would want to work in an organic structured organization.  If I were to ever manage an organization in any way I’d do my very best to try and implement both systems but lean more towards the organic system.

Information Processing as an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design

Michael L. Tushman and David A. Nadler

The Academy of Management Review, Vol, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 613-624

Published by: Academy of Management

Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/257550

Organizational Structure
W. Richard Scott
Annual Review of Sociology , Vol. 1, (1975), pp. 1-20
Published by: Annual Reviews
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946037

Designing and Effective Organization Structure

The Bridgespan Group (2009, January), Designing and effective organization structure, Retrieved from http://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/b1139597-adfe-4dd7-bbb2-ac8c67883020/Effective-Organizations_-Structural-Design.pdf.aspx