Chain of Command and Span of Control

By Travis Sokana

Chain of Command and Span of Control

Elements of Organizational Structure include all of the following:

·      Work Specialization – The degree to which tasks in an organization are divided into separate jobs

·      Chain of Command - Answers the question of “who reports to whom?” and signifies formal authority relationships

·      Span Of Control – Represents how many employees each manager in the organization has responsibility for

·      Centralization – Refers to where decisions are formally made in organizations

·      Formalization – The degree to which rules and procedures are used to standardize behaviors and decisions in an organization

This blog will focus in on Chain of command and Span of Control. All of the elements of Organizational Structure go hand and hand, but this is especially true for Chain of Command and Span of Control. 

Chain of Command

Chain of Command – The order in which authority and power in an organization is wielded and delegated from top management to every employee at every level of the organization. Instructions flow downward along the chain of command and accountability flows upward. (Business Dictionary)

The chain of command is exactly what it sounds like. It is where each employee in a traditional organizational structure reports to another employee, usually who holds a higher position then the reporting employee. Chain of command is often seen as the specific flow of authority down through the levels of an organizational structure. Although chain of command may not seem like a very important thing, most companies rely on it to attain order, control, and predictable performances. In most business chain of command also acts as an indirect communication line between lower level employees and high-level employees.  Higher-level employees, CEO’s, will communicate their instructions down the line of command till it reaches the proper level of the organizational structure. Many people commonly mistake the CEO as the top of the Chain of Commands, which is right most times but in public companies even the CEO is responsible to the board of directors. Due to the importance and effectiveness of the chain of command, newer companies are beginning to have more complex organizational structures. These complex structures commonly require reporting to several mangers. Chain of command is used in every business and is vital to the success of most businesses. 

Span of Control

Span of Control - The number of subordinates that a manager or supervisor can directly control. This number varies with the type of work: complex, variable work reduces it to six, whereas routine, fixed work increases it to twenty or more. (Business Dictionary)

In simpler terms a mangers span of control represents how many employees he or she is responsible for in the organization. (493) Span of control is directly related to chain of command, each manger in the chain of command has a span of control in which it must communicate with and manage. There are two main types of span of control, narrow spans of control and wide spans of control. Narrow spans of control let mangers hands on with employees and give them direct feedback, allowing close mentoring relationships with employees. (493) Narrow spans of control work extremely well when the manager is exponentially more skilled then its subordinates. The problem with Narrow spans of control is it requires organizations and companies to hire many mangers. Wide spans of control are the exact opposite of narrow spans of control. The key for most businesses is to find the right balance between narrow and wide spans of control. Obviously this balance in spans of control will differ for each company depending on the type of business it is. In recent years studies have shown that there is a significant increase in span of control in organizations.

References

Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2011).Organizational behavior. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Keren, Michael. "Informs Online." The Optimum Span of Control in a Pure Hierarchy. Management Science, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2013.

Sci. Aging Knowl. Environ., 11 January 2006 Vol. 2006, Issue 2, p. nf2

[DOI: 10.1126/sageke.2006.2.nf2]

Work Specialization

By Joe Iaconis

Work Specialization

Due to depth of work specialization, we have split the topic into separate posts. This is post number two.  Work specialization is the division of tasks split up throughout an organization.  Without work specialization, the common day organization wouldn’t have different divisions of their labor.  Take for example the automobile industry, and more particularly Ford Motor Company.  Ford has multiple divisions of labor spread out throughout the world.  Some assembly plants assemble their F-150 trucks, while others assemble the Mustang.  While some employees can be transferred between plants, most would be clueless being thrown into an assembly line making a totally different car.  That’s where specialization comes from.  Not only do assembly plants have work specialization; the upper management and headquarters of Ford also have different divisions dealing with work specialization.  The members of the marketing team are most likely only affiliated with the marketing division. Members of the design team are more focused on the design of new concept cars and cars for the future of the business.

“While specialization draws on idiosyncratic knowledge pertaining to the worker’s specific tasks and environment, implicit coordination is based on knowledge common to all workers. Accordingly, the trade-off between specialization and coordination translates into one between idiosyncratic and common knowledge” (Hecker, 2011).  In the article I believe that the main focus was to touch on the fact that work specialization and organizational structure go hand-in-hand.  Without one, the other is useless.  It states that specialization drawn on more a personal and individual level, whereas the structure is based on the combination of all the specializations coming into one to get a project done or keep the company running.  There are some trade-offs when it comes to work specialization.  Some organizations make some of their jobs highly specialized.  According to Organizational Behavior by Colquitt, Lepine and Wesson, organizations with highly specialized jobs can cause a roadblock when it comes to doing business with organizations that do not have the flexibility when it comes to that specialization.  They bring up a great example about the difference between an accounting major who focuses more on taxes as apposed to auditing.  Some future employers might be looking for gradates who specialized more in auditing and not as much in taxes.  Every firm is different and has different expectations for their employees.  The main focus for a student is to try to specialize in as much as you possibly can.  In the long run it may end up giving you the opportunity to become a general manager.  It is better to be specialized in a plethora of things and not have to use one in the job, compared to being under specialized for a job.  I have had more own experiences when it comes to this topic.  I have applied and have been interviewed for different types of internships, and I have been asked if I have had experience with “XYZ” program or something along those lines.  Since I haven’t taken too many upper level courses in college yet I had to reply with “No, I have not” and in the long run it hurt my chances to get the job.  Work specialization can affect your search for a new job as well as the opportunity for a promotion with your current job.

Job satisfaction also plays a role when it comes to the specialization of work and organizational structure.  “The suggestion is that, whereas job specialization may be salient for alienated workers, it is likely to be much more salient for workers committed to middle-class work values.  Thus, job specialization should be more highly related to worker dissatisfaction for committed workers than for alienated workers” (Taveggia, Hedley, 1976).  It becomes more of a personal circumstance in the work place when specialization, and especially over specialization are involved. Not providing a variety in the job proves to be another roadblock in job satisfaction.  Going back to the Ford Motor Company example, doing the same job on an assembly line may become redundant and eventually boring.  When boredom comes into play, it leads to more mistakes and overall unhappy work environments for the rest of the workplace. Most workers prefer a job that has some sort of variety to it to shake thins up a little bit.  I can say from personal experience, I prefer a job that gives me the ability to use my imagination, gives me a little freedom, and isn’t as tightly wound.  I believe this quote sums everything up quite nicely “The more unique the work, the more job security for the employee because if a worker performs well, the company prefers to avoid the costs of hiring and training a replacement. More challenging specialized work may bring in more pay because companies have higher expectations of performance and value the production” (Kokemuller, 2013).

In conclusion, I believe that work specialization is a huge factor in organizational behavior.  Just enough of it in an organization is what every company should strive for.  Nobody wants to be bored with his or her job, but at the same time, they want to be able to have as much information planted in their brains for the specific task or subject that deals with that job.

Hecker, A. (2011). Specialization, implicit coordination and organizational performance: Trading off common and idiosyncratic knowledge. Review of Managerial Science, 5(1), 19-47. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11846-010-0043-4

Kokemuller, N (2013), What Is Work Specialization?. Work.chron.com, http://work.chron.com/work-specialization-4684.html

Thomas C Taveggia, R.Alan Hedley, Job specialization, work values, and worker dissatisfaction, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 9, Issue 3, December 1976, Pages 293-309, ISSN 0001-8791, 10.1016/0001-8791(76)90057-9. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001879176900579)

Formalization in organization structure

By: Xi Chen



Formalization is the degree to which rules and procedures are followed in an organization. "The formalized organizational structure consists of a hierarchical, top down reporting and decision-making structure. It is recognized by the existence of explicit, codified standards and regulations" (Schatz, 1999). A formalized structure includes multiple layers of supervision, operational supervisors, top level directors or department heads and middle managers.

What is the difference between informal organizational structure and formal structure? The formal organizational structure is not easily changed regarding the roles. The informal organizational structures are sometimes more innovative than formalized structures. Therefore, the informal structure is more suitable in swiftly-changing departments, such as the technology department. "Additionally, the size of the organization may indicate the degree of formalization required. It is essential to understand the needs of the individual organization when determining which structure is most effective for each situation" (Formal organization, 2013).

This element has varies of difference in organizational structure. For example, some of the organizations use a time clock to control the deviant behavior. The organization sets up the arrival and departure times to work and from work specified to the minute to formalize and reduce the deviant behavior. In other organizations, they will let employees spend sufficient time on the job to get the work done. But in some organizations, the rules and procedures are less strict; they allow employees spend time on exercise or according to do their own judgment. So, different organizations have their own formalization and management styles.

In order to assess the degree of formalization, one need is to use care. In some of the organizations, rules are codified in huge manuals and no one pays attention to them; some of the employees don't even know the rules exist. Some of the organizations choose to write the rules down and post them on high profile targets, so the rules are easy to see and follow. Therefore, the most appropriate definition of formalization is how the organization uses these rules. The key factor is that "The degree to which rules are followed—not the degree to which they are codified" (Formal organization, 2013).

Here is a benefit of the formalization in an organizational structure: the routine nature of succession. The roles of this specific position will never change, no matter who is doing this specific job position. “Use is documented to record the work procedures, so that the new employee will definitely take over the vacant position from other employees" (Schatz, 1999).  The enduring structure of a formalized organization does not change unless it is purposely altered by management. The structure is easily understood and explained. Additionally, alignment of day-to-day work processes with the overall mission of the organization is easily achieved in a formalized organizational structure" (Schatz, 1999).

Formalization is influenced by technology, size, and organizational traditions. The technology can be categorized as routine and non-routine. Sometimes the organizations and work units, which the work is monotonous, are more highly formalized than the organizations and work units, which the work is non- routine. Referring to the previous example, we can easily see that the size of the organization influences the formalization. Large organizations have greater needs to formalize their activities than smaller organizations. Also tradition influences the formalization. "If an early top executive believed that rules and procedures should he follow the letter, this set of beliefs was codified into the organization's procedures manuals" (Formal organization, 2013). The organization will remain more formalized over time than existing conditions that it might have predicted.

What happens to members who rigidly follow formalized organizations or work groups? In these organizations strict rules limit the functioning of all individuals in the organization. "Workers came to follow rules for the sake of the rules themselves since that determined how they were rewarded" (Formal organization, 2013). More and more rules were created and employees started failing to strive for autonomy. The consequences were negative. This resulted in the decline of competitiveness, loss of worker productivity, increased operating costs and prices, and degradation of labor. "These negative consequences of rigid formalization have long been recognized" (Formal organization, 2013).

A number of studies show that the professionalization can't be compatible with formalization. Nonetheless, formalization and professionalization are actually doing the same thing in the organization structure. "Formalization is the internal process through which an organization sets rules, standards, and procedures to ensure that things get done correctly" (Schatz, 1999). From an organization's viewpoint, both processes are operative. If it acquires a specialized work force, the organization itself simply is not paying the costs of inculcating standardized practices. Nevertheless, there could be tension between the standards learned by the professionals and the demands of the organization. "Professionalization is an external means for accomplishing the same result: Business schools teach future managers behaviors that will be expected of them in their work organizations" (Formal organization, 2013).








References

Schatz Traci. (1999). Basic Types of Organizational Structure: Formal & Informal.
Retrieved from: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/basic-types-organizational-structure-formal-informal-982.html
Formal organization. (2013, March 7). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Formal_organization&oldid=542501953

Work Specialization

By: Jessica Kotcher

Organizational structure is a key element into how Human Resources are run.  Organizational Structure formally dictates how jobs and tasks are divided and coordinated between individuals and groups within a company.  A number of us in this group blog are going to post what we believe are important aspects of Human Resources and Organization Structure.  I am going to start by blogging about one element of the organization structure, Work Specialization. 

Work Specialization is the degree to which tasks in an organization are divided into separate jobs.  In some companies or organizations this is also referred to as division of labor.  Work specialization is something that helps companies become more efficient, and productive.  It is always important for a company’s productivity to go up and or stay stable.  According to our textbook, Organization Behavior, “Work specialization is a never-ending trade off among productivity, flexibility, and worker motivation. “  I believe a key element to becoming a successful company and/or business is keeping your employees satisfied, and motivated, because if your employees are unhappy or unmotivated than the productivity of the workload will be lessened.  An example of where work specialization may be used to help productivity and efficiency would possibly be in a shop, or an assembly line setting.  One of the first businessmen to implement this idea of work specialization in a blue collar fashion was Henry Ford.  He believed the assembly line was beneficial to his company and indeed it was.  The assembly line focused on workers only performing one specific task and passing it to the next person.  It was well-organized, fast, and efficient, something that the auto industry needed to implement in order to be successful, and Ford did just that. 

While researching this topic, and how it affects organizations, I came across a book on Diversity in organizations that shares different types of analysis of work specialization and organizations levels, “Research shows that work specialization may form the basis of ethnocentric behavior in organizations.”(Cox, Finley, 1995)  Another article that I found interesting was, talking about higher executives, and how they deal with problem solving within an organization.  This information is from the Dearborn/Simon Theory from 1958. “When a group of executives from different functional areas were presented with the same problem and asked to consider it from a companywide perspective, the defined the problem largely in terms of the activities and goals of their own functional areas.”(Academy of Management Journal,1988) This proves that work specialization was already in affect before it was even required.  Research clearly shows that some individuals are just better off working on one specific area or line of work that they enjoy.  In this example it was clear that each executive that specialized in a different area looked at the problem through a different light.  This is a beneficial aspect because if one executive looked at this then they would only see one answer to the problem, when in actuality there were several different answers to the problem that was given and work specialization is the reason for that.  I also found that many medical professions, such as nursing, show work specialization in the field.  “The more specialization in hospitals, the more satisfaction with professional status, task requirements, interaction, and pay among nurses.” (Buelens, Jonghe,Willem 2007)

 Although work specialization has its perks and can be a helpful aspect for any company or business, it has its disadvantages as well.  Work specialization can cause organizations to lose the ability to have employees become more flexible in what tasks they are capable of performing.  Spending all their time performing specialized tasks, it takes away from other skills and abilities that they may have.  This is a risk that a company is taking when using this element of organization structure.  Another reason why work specialization can be a disadvantage to a company is Job satisfaction.  One of the characteristics of job satisfaction is variety.  It is clear that with work specialization, variety is not really an aspect of this at all.  Variety can be good in the work environment because people will not become bored, or uninterested in what they are doing every day.  This is when a manager should step in and make an executive decision whether or not work specialization is a beneficial work element to the company. 

After learning more about what work specialization is and how it can benefit or even create a burden on your company, employers should decide whether or not this may be something they are interested in looking into.  The history is there, and much research proves that work specialization can be an advantage for the company, but when it comes down to it, it is always the employer’s decision whether or not to implement this element of organizational structure.  

Cox, T., & Finley, J. (1995). An analysis of work specialization and organization level as dimensions of workforce diversity. In M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. Costanzo (Eds.), The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology: Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace. (pp. 62-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781452243405.n4

Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of M. (1988). Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 873-873. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/199822948?accountid=12924

Willem, Annick, Marc Buelens, and Ives De Jonghe. "Impact of Organizational Structure on Nurses' Job Satisfaction:A Questionnaire Survey." International Journal of Nursing Studies (2007): 1011-1020. Web. 11 Apr. 2013. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748906001064>.