Introduction
Organizational design is a framework that an organization applies with the objective of realizing its vision. This process involves coordinating various structural components of the organization in a certain manner. The paper will focus on literature review of organizational redesigning by narrowing down to departmentalization, specialization, spans of control, centralization and decentralization, and chains of command as evidenced by various scholarships in the field.
Summary and analysis of scholarships in the field
In most instances, the success and failure of an organization are attributed to its design or management’s ability. According to Johnson et al. (1973, p.144), an excellent organizational design should be flexible, economical, simple, and acceptable. Various theories have been put forward concerning organizational redesigning.
The major theories of organizational redesigning are the neoclassical and classical theories. Scholars like Weber and Taylor put forward the classical theories. According to this school of thought, organizational redesigning should be founded on high organization efficiency. To the scholars, organizations can perform best when their design is grounded on efficiency.
In fact, Dobbin (1994, p.138) posits that organizations that will adopt inefficient designs will soon be eliminated by the environment. Changes in the spans of control, departmentalization, chains of command, and centralization and decentralization should always target on improving an organization’s efficiency.
The second category of scholarship is the neoclassical school of thought that comprises theories that were put forward by Sapru, Argyris, Wissest, and McGregor. According to this school of thought, organizational design should be centralized on basic human needs and people’s ability of self-expression (Taylor, 1911).
Organizational redesigning should enable human beings involved in the organization to express themselves and have their basic needs fulfilled. To these scholars, the most important thing about organizational redesigning is to be people-focused. Analysis of these scholarships reveals that organizational redesigning is imperative to the development.
Moreover, some organizational designs are more efficient and effective in relation to others. Johnson et al. (1993) affirm that the major determinant of the level of success of a certain organizational design is the level of skills that the designer has and the management quality. In some instances, it depends on both the management skills and managerial operation skills.
From deeper analysis, one will further realize that the key building blocks of a good organizational design are flexibility, reliability, simplicity, acceptability, and design. These elements can further be summarized into design functions, operations, and design functions. The design functions involve flexibility, simplicity, and reliability.
Design and operation functions involve acceptability and economy. However, there exist great links between the two major functions. For example, economy and reliability will depend on simplicity. In addition, both the classical and neoclassical theorists agree that organizational design must be geared towards achievement of organizational goals.
A cordial relationship and acceptance of the preferred design must exist between the designers and the implementers. Johnson et al. (1973) also say that an organizational design may be good though the implementers can easily fail it. Lawrence and Williams (1967) affirm that, in organizational redesigning, differentiation should enable various tasks that fit together to coexist.
Moreover, human resources that work together having similar knowledge and skills should be put together. Lawrence and Williams (1967) further note that departments that are coordinated by their functions should also be put in one line.
Finally, analysis of these scholarships portrays that, in both classical and neoclassical theories, tasks are allocated based on functions. In fact, the major role of organizational redesigning is to plan, allocate responsibilities, and to structure power.
Relationship between scholars and their schools of thought
There exist a link between scholars behind the classical and the neoclassical theories. Although one school of thought focuses on efficiency as the other focuses on people, the two theories aim at achieving organizations’ vision. In fact, Daft and Armstrong (2009) assert that the classical scholars propose that organizational designs should enable the proper functioning of both bureaucracy and scientific management.
Both of these are meant to promote efficiency. According to Weber (1968), organizational design should focus on creating jurisdictions for its human resources. This argument means that, for organizations to attain a good level of efficiency that the classical school of thought proposes, various functions should be designated.
Weber says that, with bureaucracy, the occupants of top offices become the leaders of the people under them. This strategy promotes checks hence efficiency. The classical theorists also pose it that all people who are involved in the implementation of this design must be trained on how to perform their duties.
This exercise ensures that there is reduced wastage from scrap and errors. Training also promotes efficiency in that well trained workforce will avoid repetition of similar duties. The classical school of thought also argues that efficiency is achieved through time management. When every person in the design implementation process is trained, there is no time wastage and no time for correction and or induction.
The supervisors can perform their duties effectively. In addition, classical theorists purport that, when organizational designs follow their argument, employees will exploit their full working capacity because, they are well trained and supervised. This effort will surely lead to efficiency realization.
Finally, when this school of thought is applied, the organization’s rules and regulations are likely to be followed. Weber (1968) argues that bureaucracy enables the workforce of certain organizations to stick to the organizations’ rules. In comparison, the neoclassical school of thought focuses on people and self-expression. This school of thought is also referred to as human relations.
Scholars claim that the theories put their basic concerns on the human resources in organizations. According to Weber (1968), the neoclassical perspective is to ensure that leadership, free expression, and employee morale are prioritized in organizational redesigning because the human resources of all organizations have an internal environment that affects how they behave.
The conditions that a certain organization accords human resources will determine how they respond to duties. This school of thought is for the idea that, if organizational designs were people-focused, they would always meet their objectives. In fact, Weber (1968) says that proponents of the neoclassical school of thought are completely opposed to the classical school of thought proposed by scholars Weber and Taylor because their scholarship focuses on structures and not human resources.
The argument is that structures alone cannot yield effectiveness as people can. To the scholars of the neoclassical school of thought, efficiency can only be realized if the organizational designs begin by focusing on people, as opposed to efficiency devices. According to Weber (1968), organizational designs should focus on better treatment of people as resources.
When organizations focus on the human resources, they are able to achieve their ambitions and to meet their needs thus acting as a motivation the workforce that yields better results. The neoclassical theorists pose it that, when employees’ welfare is well managed, teamwork is achieved. In fact, according to Weber (1968), when an organizational design allows its workforce to interact freely, a sense of belonging is nurtured thus reducing the rate of turnover.
Weber (1968) argues that proper leadership and counseling in organizations can promote a free environment through communication. On their side, the classical theorists claim that the neoclassical theorists emphasize only on the social aspect. To them, organizations are majorly set up to meet certain production objectives, which should guide redesigning.
Complexities of organizational change process
Changing the design of an organization is a complex undertaking because organizations comprise both internal and external environment. People in the organization will all require their values, needs, and preferences to be considered during restructuring. Every organization is unique in a certain way. The way organizations are led, the way decisions are made, and the way employees interact vary from one organization to the other.
An organizational design that perfectly works for one organization may completely become dysfunctional in another. Every organizational designer should realize that, regardless of the school of thought that an organization applies, various organizational functions have to be altered. Redesigning results in changes in the process of decision-making, leadership, and communication structures.
Unfortunately, if the design adopted fails, all decisions in the organization flop. Moreover, communication fails with leadership becoming questionable. Therefore, organizational redesigning in both schools of thought should consider various issues. To begin with, the size of the firm should be considered. The design that a firm adopts should be consistent with its size.
Complex organizations may adopt complex designs like the matrix design while small firms ought to adopt simple designs. According to Weber (1968), information flow in a small organization is simple while that of a large organization is complex. The process of decision-making is also complex in large organizations. Secondly, the environment of the organization should be considered.
Large organizations have wide environments both internal and external. Johnson et al. (1973) affirm that redesigning large organizations requires the understanding of the whole environment including the implementers. Therefore, different designs present different organizational images. Thirdly, the differences in operations and resources should also be considered in organizational redesigning.
Various organizations have varying resource bases implying that their redesigning ability and ability to implement new designs are different. Since redesigning requires finances, the financial position of the organization is a factor to consider. Small sized firms require fewer resources to redesign since they are not complex while large firm requires huge financial base.
At this point, the ownership of the organization may also present another complexity in the process of organizational redesigning. A sole proprietorship will be different from a partnership, and a government owned organization because the process of decision making in a sole proprietorship is quicker compared to partnerships and government organizations. These organizations will therefore take different times to redesign.
Conclusion
In conclusion, literature review of organizational redesigning indicates that various schools of thought have been put forward to address the issue of organizational redesigning. The theories may be classical or neoclassical. The classical theories focus redesigning on efficiency while neoclassical one focuses it on people and self-expression.
The process of designing and implementation of organizational design is complex. The level of complexity is based on the size, environment, and decision-making process of the organization.
Reference List
Daft, R., & Armstrong, A. (2009). Organization Theory and Design. Toronto: Nelson.
Dobbin, F. (1994). Cultural Models of Organization: The Social Construction of Rational Organizing Principles. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Johnson, R., Rozenzweig, J., & Kast, F. (1973). The Theory and Management of Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lawrence, P., & Williams, J. (1967). Organization and environment; managing differentiation and integration. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
Taylor, F. (1911). The principles of Scientific management. New York: Harper Brothers.
Weber, M., (1968). Bureaucracy. In Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.