The Impact of Organisational Structures:
Organisational structure plays a pivotal role in shaping the dynamics, operations, and outcomes of any business or institution. It serves as the blueprint that defines how tasks are divided, communication flows, and decision-making processes are executed. The impact of organisational structure on effectiveness and efficiency is profound, influencing how well an organisation can adapt to change, optimise resources, and achieve its goals. In this article, we’ll explore the concept of organisational structure, delve into various types of structures, and discuss where each one may be most useful.
Understanding The Impact of Organisational Structures:
The impact of organisational structures can be felt throughout the whole firm due to how many factors it affects.
Work specialisation: Work specialisation, also known as division of labour, involves breaking down complex tasks into smaller, manageable components. This component aims to improve efficiency and productivity by allowing employees to focus on specific tasks they excel in. This is about creating job descriptions and responsibilities.
Departmentalisation: Departmentalisation involves grouping employees based on certain criteria, such as function, product, geography, or customer type. This component helps in organising activities, improving coordination, and enhancing decision-making within each group
Formalisation: The impact of organisational structures also involves formalisation which refers to the extent to which an organisation’s procedures, rules, and activities are standardised. High formalisation ensures consistency, reduces ambiguity, and promotes predictability. However, an excessive focus on formalisation may stifle creativity and innovation, hindering an organisation’s ability to adapt to change.
Span of Control: The span of control represents the number of employees a manager supervises. A wide span of control indicates a flat hierarchy, where managers oversee a larger number of subordinates, fostering quick decision-making and efficient communication. In contrast, a narrow span of control signifies a more hierarchical structure, allowing for closer supervision and control but potentially slowing down decision-making processes.
Chain of Command: The impact of organisational structures extends out to the chain of command, which outlines the formal lines of authority and communication within an organisation. It establishes the flow of decision-making from top-level management down to frontline employees. A clear chain of command reduces confusion, clarifies reporting relationships, and ensures accountability. However, a rigid chain of command can lead to delays in decision-making and hinder the dissemination of information.
Centralisation: Centralisation refers to the concentration of decision-making authority at the top levels of an organisation. This component is associated with a more hierarchical structure, where key decisions are made by a select group of individuals. Centralisation can lead to consistent decision-making and streamlined processes, but it may also limit the input and creativity of lower-level employees. In contrast, decentralisation distributes decision-making authority to various levels of the organisation, promoting flexibility and faster response times.
Each component of organisational structure plays a crucial role in shaping the way an organization functions. Work specialisation enhances efficiency, departmentalisation fosters coordination, formalisation provides consistency, span of control determines supervisory dynamics, chain of command ensures accountability, and centralisation defines decision-making authority. Showing that the impact of organisational structures is truly seen in almost every aspect of a company’s operations. Striking the right balance among these components is essential for creating a structure that aligns with an organisation’s goals, culture, and operational needs.
Types of Organisational Structures:
The impact of organisational structures can be seen in areas such as communication, job satisfaction, motivation, and performance. A well-defined structure clarifies roles, reduces ambiguity, and promotes alignment toward common objectives. Here are just some examples of popular organisational structures.
Functional Structure: This is one of the most traditional and common organisational structures. It groups employees by their functions or areas of expertise, such as marketing, finance, operations, and human resources. This structure enhances specialisation within departments and allows for clear goal setting where each department knows exactly what is expected of them. It is best suited for larger organisations due to the larger staff requirements. In smaller firms one person may carry out multiple roles, whereas here each department tends to stick to their speciality. Amazon is one famous example of a firm which has succeeded using this strategy; with separate departments handling logistics, marketing, customer service, and more.
However, a common problem of this structure is that it can lead to a silo mentality, where each department competes with one another as opposed to working together. This leads to a breakdown of communication and negatively affects the whole firm with misunderstandings or outright hostility between departments.
Divisional Structure: In a divisional structure, an organisation is divided into semi-autonomous divisions, each responsible for a specific product, service, market, or geographic area. This structure enables better focus on individual markets or products and allows for more efficient decision-making. It is suitable for larger organisations with diverse business lines and firms that operate internationally.
Fast-food chains such as McDonalds‘ are prime of examples of firms with divisional structures focused on a geographical basis.
One of the key problems with this structure is that it can also foster hostility between divisions, but more importantly; it requires many levels of management. This can slow down decision making and make it difficult to achieve a consistent brand image across all divisions.
Matrix Structure: A matrix structure combines elements of both functional and divisional structures. Employees report to both functional managers and project or product managers. This structure promotes cross-functional collaboration and flexibility but can lead to complexities in reporting and accountability. It is useful for organisations engaged in multiple projects or industries. This is also the primary structure used for project management.
A key issue here is of course communication. Due to there being 2 lines of authority there may often be discrepancies between what both parties want, leaving the employee unsure of who they should listen to. This can later lead to conflicts between management parties, meaning that establishing clear guidelines and rules is essential for this structure to work.
Flat Structure: In a flat structure, there are few hierarchical levels, and employees have broader responsibilities and more autonomy. This promotes faster decision-making, open communication, and a collaborative culture. Flat structures are often found in start-ups and small businesses aiming to foster innovation and adaptability.
Flat structures can become a problem as a firm grows due to the division of an individual’s attention. Meaning that they will not be able to put their entire focus on one element of the firm, leading to employees spreading themselves too thin and not doing a great job in any one of their tasks.
Hierarchical Structure: A hierarchical structure, also known as a tall structure, is characterised by multiple levels of management and clear lines of authority. Decisions flow from the top down, making it suitable for organisations that require strict control and standardised processes.
A big positive of this is that it shows clear career progression for staff and clearly defines job roles and expectations. The problem is that due to how many layers there are, communication can be slow, inaccurate, or simply non-existent in extreme circumstances.
An example of a firm which has made this work is Tesco; being one of the largest supermarkets in the world.
Network Structure: In a network structure, an organization collaborates with external partners, suppliers, and contractors to accomplish tasks and projects. This flexible structure is advantageous for organisations engaged in complex and rapidly changing environments, such as the technology and creative industries.
Firms which use franchising are often operating in a network structure, the likes of Starbucks for example, where many independent stores work under one brand. One of the key benefits of this structure is that it is easily scalable – it can be grown rapidly.
However, the decentralisation and number of independent entities can make cohesion quite difficult with each entity wanting to do its own thing.
The Impact of Organisational Structures – Final Thoughts:
The impact of organisational structures can be seen in almost part of a firm, as businesses continue to evolve, understanding and adapting these components can significantly impact an organisation’s effectiveness and success. Choosing the right organisational structure is crucial to the success of your business, and the right structure may change depending on what stage your business is currently in. However, the impact of organisational structures can be very negative if the wrong structure is chosen, or if it is not adapted in time.
Click here to find out more about how we can support your business, and your people.
If you are part of a workplace doing great things in the area of workplace wellbeing and employee wellness and would like to be featured in a future article, please get in touch with one of our team today, or contact us here. We love to learn and share details of companies doing fantastic things to support their people.
