The traditional and contemporary views of the key elements of organizational design
It is possible to distinguish such elements of organizational design as departmentalization, work specialization, chain of command, formalization, centralization, and span of control (Robbins & Coulter, 2012). Traditionally, departmentalization and work specialization has been critical for allocating duties and specifying the activities of individuals or business units. Yet, contemporary managers believe that in many cases, companies have to eliminate departmental barriers. Moreover, employees are required to develop new skills. In turn, centralization, chain of command, and span of control have been important for the implementation of decisions. Nevertheless, modern managers note that in any case, these elements of design slow down the functioning of organizations and make them too bureaucratic. Similarly, formalization has been important for describing how tasks are performed. However, some modern organizations often empower workers and take an individualized approach to the completion of different tasks. Overall, the six elements of the design have become less relevant because contemporary businesses have to adjust to external stressors, and organizational design has become less rigid.
A quick change of an organization’s structure
Organizational structure cannot be changed quickly because frontline managers and employees cannot quickly adjust to new workplace procedures, accountability standards, or power relations. Overall, the organization should be quickly changed only if it is necessary to adjust to urgent external stressors or eliminate some important weaknesses that undermine the work of the enterprise.
Mechanistic and organic organizations
Mechanic organizations are very formalized and bureaucratic. Moreover, they incorporate a rigid workplace hierarchy, and employees are not supposed to make independent decisions. In contrast, organic organizations continuously have to adapt to changes, and they encourage the decentralization of decision-making (Robbins & Coulter, 2012).
Overall, I would prefer to work in an organic organization because businesses enable workers to take independent initiatives and seek creative solutions to various problems. This is one of the opportunities that I value.
The contingency factors that affect organizational design
There are several contingency factors that affect the organizational design. For example, the changes in the external environment, such as increased competition, can prompt companies to become less bureaucratic. Additionally, technologies used by businesses also shape their organizational design. For instance, companies involved in the use or development of information technologies tend to be more decentralized and less bureaucratic. As a rule, such enterprises encourage independent initiatives of workers and foster their creativity.
The traditional organizational designs
There are three types of organizational design. At first, one should speak about simple organizational design, which means that there are few departments within a company. Furthermore, the workplace hierarchy is relatively flat because the most important decisions are taken by a small number of people (Robbins & Coulter, 2012). Additionally, one should speak about functional design. It is more complex because the enterprise includes a greater number of business units that have to cope with specific tasks that do not overlap. Yet, these units are dependent on one another. In this case, workers with similar skills are grouped. Finally, one should speak about divisional design, which means that the enterprise consists of units that are responsible for the design, manufacturing, and distribution of a product. Such divisions are usually self-sufficient.
Organizing as an important managerial function in the age of information technology
Organizing is still an important managerial function even despite the rapid development of technologies. This activity is important for increasing the efficiency of people’s work. In particular, organizing enables workers to understand the overarching objectives that an enterprise should attain. Thus, employees can better coordinate their efforts.
Negative results of simplification of work tasks
The simplification of tasks can lead to negative effects only if workers do not fully understand the outcome that should be achieved. For example, employees may be required on separate parts of a project. They can cope with their tasks relatively quickly. However, the results of their work cannot be integrated into a single functioning entity. This is one of the pitfalls that should be avoided.
Reference
Robbins, S., & Coulter, M. (2012). Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.