De fundamenten van de organisatiestructuur Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Leerdoelen De zes hoofdelementen van een organisatiestructuur te noemen De eenvoudige structuur te beschrijven De kenmerken van de bureaucratie op te sommen De matrixorganisatie te beschrijven De kenmerken van een `virtuele' organisatie uit te leggen Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Leerdoelen Samen te vatten waarom managers organisaties zonder grenzen willen opzetten Aan te geven op grond van welke factoren gekozen wordt voor een bepaalde organisatiestructuur Uiteen te zetten welke gevolgen verschillende organisatiestructuren hebben voor werknemersgedrag Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Wat is een organisatiestructuur? In hoeverre zijn werkzaamheden opgesplitst in deeltaken? Op welke basis worden taken samengevoegd? Aan wie zijn individuen en groepen verantwoording schuldig? Aan hoeveel individuen kan een manager effectief en efficiënt leiding geven? Bij wie berust de beslissingsbevoegdheid? In hoeverre zijn er regels en voorschriften voor werknemers en managers? Because the structure of an organization defines how tasks are divided, grouped, and coordinated, there are six key elements that managers must consider when they design their organization’s structure: work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, span of control, centralization or decentralization, and formalization. The slide above presents each of those elements as an answer to an important structural question. 1. Work specialization 2. Departmentalization 3. Chain of command 4. Span of control 5. Centralization and decentralization 6. Formalization Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Voor- en nadelen van taakspecialisatie Hoog Invloed van nadelen in menselijk opzicht Invloed van schaalvoordelen van specialisatie Productiviteit Division of labor, or work specialization, describes the degree to which organizational tasks are subdivided into separate jobs. An entire job is not done by one person. Instead, it is divided into discrete steps, each one completed by a different person. By the late 1940s, work specialization enabled manufacturing firms to make the most effective use of their employees’ skills. So, managers believed that division of labor offered an unending source of increased productivity. By the 1960s, however, the human diseconomies resulting from work specialization began to offset the economic advantages. Managers today realize that while division of labor is appropriate for some jobs, productivity in other jobs can be increased through enlarging, not narrowing, job activities. Laag Laag Taakspecialisatie Hoog Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Andere aspecten van de organisatiestructuur Departmentalisatie Gezagslijn Span of Control The basis on which jobs are grouped to coordinate common tasks is called departmentalization. Activities can be grouped according to function and pursue economies of scale by placing employees with shared skills and knowledge into work-groups. Tasks can also be grouped according to a specific product. This increases accountability by placing all activities related to the product under one manager. If an organization’s customers are geographically dispersed, it can group jobs based on geography or territory. Since each process requires different skills, process departmentalization enables the homogenous categorization of activities. Finally, jobs may be grouped according to the type of customer served by the organization. While many organizations combine these methods, two are gaining popularity: customer departmentalization and cross-functional teams. An unbroken line of authority extending from the top to the bottom of an organization, the chain of command clarifies who reports to whom. Authority refers to the rights inherent in a managerial position to give orders and expect them to be obeyed. The unity of command principle states that a worker should have only one person to whom he or she is directly responsible. These two concepts are affected by computer networks and employee empowerment. How many employees can a manager efficiently and effectively direct? The answer to this question will determine the number of levels and managers that an organization has. While some advocate small spans of control, there are several drawbacks: they require more managers and are more costly, they retard vertical communication, and they foster tight controls and limited employee autonomy. Wide spans of control reduce costs, cut overhead, expedite decision making, increase flexibility, empower employees, and promote customer contact. All things being equal, the broader the span of control, the more efficient the organization Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Besluitvorming in organisaties Hoog Centralisatie Besluitvorming door topmanagement Decentralisatie Empowerment van werknemers Hoog The term centralization refers to the degree to which decision making is concentrated at a single point in the organization. The more input provided by lower-level personnel, the more decentralized the organization. Organizations today are becoming more decentralized to solve problems more quickly and to obtain increased employee input and commitment to organizational goals. Besluitvorming door topmanagement Empowerment van werknemers Laag Laag Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

vrijheid van de werknemer Formalisatie vrijheid van de werknemer Veel formalisatie Weinig formalisatie Veel standaardisering The term formalization refers to the degree to which jobs within an organization are standardized. Highly formalized jobs are characterized by explicit job descriptions, organizational rules, clearly defined procedures, and consistent, uniform output. Less formalized jobs involve fewer structural constraints, so workers have more control over how they perform their jobs. Weinig Weinig Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

beslissingsbevoegdheid Centrale beslissingsbevoegdheid Brede spans of control Geen formalisatie Weinig departmentalisatie Eenvoudige structuur Placing organizations into only two categories--mechanistic and organic--does not capture the nuances and realities of modern organizations. The remainder of the slides present a number of practical organization design options. We will start with the simple structure--the form that almost all new organizations begin with and that continues to be used by managers of small businesses. Popular in small businesses owned and managed by same person, the simple structure has several characteristics: a low degree of departmentalization, wide spans of control, centralized authority, little formalization, and a flat structure. This fast, flexible structure is inexpensive to maintain and promotes clear accountability. However, as the organization grows, low formalization and high centralization can cause information overload at the top. And, this structure is risky because everything depends on one person. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

De bureaucratie Functionele afdelingen structuur The paradigm of business structures 30 years ago, a bureaucracy has the following characteristics: highly specialized operating tasks, formalized rules and regulations, tasks grouped into functional departments, centralized authority, narrow spans of control, and chain-of-command decision making. This structure expedites the efficient performance of standardized activities. Furthermore, rules and regulations allow bureaucracies to substitute less-talented (less-costly) managers for creative, experienced decision makers. This structure does have several drawbacks. Specialization can create jurisdictional disputes or “turf-wars” as functional unit goals override the goals of the organization. Plus, bureaucrats resist change and avoid outcome accountability. Given environmental volatility, however, many bureaucracies have become less rigid and more entrepreneurial through decentralizing decision making, designing work around teams, and developing strategic alliances. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

verantwoordelijkheid Efficiënte toewijzing van specialisten Duidelijke verantwoordelijkheid Dubbele gezagslijn Cross-functioneel coördineren De matrixstructuur The matrix structure assigns functional specialists to interdisciplinary teams that are supervised by project leaders. This structure combines product departmentalization and functional departmentalization. Because workers in the matrix have two bosses—their functional department managers and their product managers—the matrix breaks the unity-of-command concept. The matrix has strong points: it facilitates coordination between multiple projects that are complex and interdependent, and it efficiently allocates specialists. The matrix also has several weaknesses: it can create confusion, foster power struggles, and increase employee stress. So, the matrix has met with mixed success. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

De teamstructuur Teams zijn verantwoordelijk Empowerment Management can focus its coordination efforts by using a team structure. A team structure breaks down departmental barriers, flattens the organization, decentralizes decision making, empowers employees, promotes accountability, and requires employees to be generalists as well as specialists. In smaller companies, the team structure can define the entire organization. More often, especially in larger organizations, the team structure complements what is typically a bureaucracy. Such an arrangement allows the organization to achieve the efficiency of standardization while gaining flexibility. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

De virtuele organisatie Onafhankelijk R&D- consultancybureau Reclamebureau Bedrijfs- leiding Sometimes called network or modular, virtual organizations stay small and outsource major functions. This highly centralized structure limits departmentalization. Because individuals and small companies unite on a project-by-project basis, each project can be staffed according to its demands. In addition, bureaucratic overhead and long-term risks and costs are minimized. Virtual organizations are flexible, but they limit management’s control over key parts of its business. The figure above shows a virtual organization. Management outsources all of the primary functions of the business. The core of the organization is a small group of executives. They oversee directly any activities that are done in-house and coordinate relationships (usually contracts) with other organizations that manufacture, distribute, and perform other crucial functions for the virtual organization. Fabrieken in Zuid-Korea Vertegenwoordigers op commissiebasis Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

De grenzenloze organisatie Empowerment van werknemers Brede spans of control Beperkte gezagslijn This method minimizes the chain of command, limits spans of control, and replaces departments with empowered teams. Cross-hierarchical teams, participative decision making, and 360-degree performance appraisals dismantle vertical boundaries. Cross-functional teams, project-driven activities, lateral transfers, and job rotation break down horizontal barriers. Globalization, strategic alliances, customer-organization linkages, and telecommuting overcome external barriers. The boundaryless organization is made possible by networked computers that expedite communication across intra-organizational and inter-organizational boundaries. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Mechanistische versus organische structuur - Sterke horizontale differentiatie - Rigide hiërarchische relaties - Vaste plichten - Sterke formalisatie - Geformaliseerde communicatiekanalen - Centrale besluitvorming - Geringe horizontale differentiatie - Samenwerking (verticaal en horizontaal) - Wisselende plichten - Weinig formalisatie - Informele communicatie - Decentrale besluitvorming Rigid and tightly controlled, the mechanistic organization is characterized by high specialization, extensive departmentalization, narrow spans of control, high formalization, downward communication, high centralization, and little participation by low-level members in decision making. Jobs are standardized, simple, and routine. There is also strict adherence to the chain of command. In its ideal form, the mechanistic organization is an “efficiency machine,” well lubricated by rules, regulations, and routines. The organic organization is a direct contrast to the mechanistic form. It is characterized by a flat structure, flexibility, use of cross-functional teams, adaptability, comprehensive information networking, and decentralization. Rather than having standardized jobs and regulations, the organic structure’s flexibility allows it to change rapidly as needs require. While there is a division of labor, jobs are not standardized, and employees are well-trained and empowered to make job-related decisions. The net effect is that workers need a minimal degree of formal rules and little direct supervision. With these two models in mind, we are now prepared to address the question: Why are some organizations structured along more mechanistic lines while others lean toward organic characteristics? Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Onzekerheden en het ontwerp van de organisatie Strategie Grootte van de organisatie The structure that an organization selects to achieve its objectives is based on strategy. Most current strategy frameworks are based on three dimensions: innovation, cost minimization, and imitation. Rather than cosmetic changes, innovation strategy pursues unique, meaningful change. Cost-minimization strategy controls costs by limiting marketing or innovation and by cutting prices on products. Imitation strategy combines the previous strategies by moving into markets after innovators have successfully penetrated them and by copying their ideas. While the size of an organization significantly influences its structure, the relationship is non-linear. Large organizations (2,000+ employees) have more specialization, departmentalization, vertical levels, rules, and regulations than do smaller organizations. However, size affects the organization at a decreasing rate and becomes less important as an organization expands. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Onzekerheden en het ontwerp van de organisatie Technologie en structuur Onzekerheid in de omgeving Organizations use technology to transform inputs into outputs. In 1960, Joan Woodward studied nearly 100 small manufacturing firms in England. She segmented them into three categories based on the sizes of their production runs. Category one, unit production, included unit or small-batch companies that manufactured custom products, such as tailor-made suits. Category two, mass production, included large-batch or mass-production manufacturers, such as automobile makers. Category three, process production, included continuous-process producers, such as oil refiners. She reached two conclusions: (1) distinct relationships exist between a firm’s technology classification and its structure; (2) organizational effectiveness is contingent upon “fit” between technology and structure. Subsequent studies have demonstrated that organizational structures adapt to technology. Furthermore, the degree of routineness differentiates technologies. So, technologies tend toward either routine or non-routine activities. The former are characterized by standard technologies, the latter by customized activities. Because an organization’s environment consists of institutions or forces outside of the organization that can affect its performance, environmental uncertainty greatly influences structure. In fact, management will attempt to minimize uncertainty by adjusting the organization’s structure. Scarce, dynamic, and complex environments require flexible, organic structures; but, abundant, stable, and simple environments require mechanistic structures. Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13

Organisatiestructuur en gedrag van werknemers Taakspecialisatie Span of control The evidence generally indicates that work specialization contributes to higher employee productivity but at the price of reduced job satisfaction. In addition, specialization is not an unending source of higher productivity. Problems start to surface and productivity suffers when the human diseconomies of doing repetitive, narrow tasks overtake the economies of specialization. As the workforce becomes more educated, the point at which productivity declines seems to be reached more quickly than in the past. But it would be naïve to ignore the segment of the workforce which still prefers highly specialized jobs. Research evidence does not support a relationship between span of control and employee performance. While it is attractive to argue that wider spans of control lead to higher performance, it is impossible to state that any particular span of control is best for producing high performance and satisfaction among employees. However, some evidence suggests that a manager’s job satisfaction increases as the number of workers he or she supervises increases. Fairly strong evidence links centralization and job satisfaction. Organizations that are less centralized have a greater amount of participative decision making, and evidence indicates that participation is positively related to satisfaction on the job. But again, individual differences surface. For example, employees who have low self-esteem place a fairly high value on shared decision making since they will not be held solely responsible for their action. Centralisatie Pearson Education, 2002 Hoofdstuk 13