Designing Organisations Assured Assignment Help

Assessment

Coursework

There will be one essay of 3,000 words. Choose from one of the following 3 titles:

The post-industrial organisation is often characterised as an innovative form of organising. With reference to theory and examples discuss how true you believe this to be. For this essay the reference lists for lecture 1, 2 and 10 are relevant
Critically evaluate and explain the performance of any team which you have been a part of (for instance this could be a work team [including a virtual team], sports team, community team, student team) utilising theories of groups and/or virtual) teams in your explanation. For this essay the reference lists for lecture 3 and lecture 4 on virtual teams are relevant.
Choose any firm operating across geographic borders and discuss two critical design issues and possible solutions (or those already in place) facing this organisation with reference to theory. For this essay the reference lists for lectures 5, 6, 8 and 10 are relevant.

Solution

The post-industrial organisation is often characterised as an innovative form of organising. With reference to theory and examples discuss how true you believe this to be

Introduction:

The performance of an organization is explicitly dependent on the alignment of its functions with the external environment. However, in the initial phases of the organization, it has to observe the particular implications of organizational structure and design in order to ensure the appropriate arrangement of the various functional areas of the company (Albers, Wohlgezogen & Zajac, 2016). Organizations have been characterized with varying structures over the course of decades and a clear reflection on the evolutionary phases of organizational structure and design could facilitate insights into the opportunities for competitive advantage. The following essay aims to present an affirmative view on the fact that the organizations in the post-industrial era have been associated with an innovative form of organizing through references to theories and examples.

Organizational design and forms:

The mandatory requirement of strategy and organization for the sustainable effectiveness and performance of an organization has been observed profoundly in the context of business management. Organizing has been attributed as a prolific source of competitive advantage for companies and is perceived as a crucial asset for a company to address strategic objectives according to varying scenarios (Anderson, Bell & Shirky, 2015). The frequency of change in the contemporary business environment has led to the proliferation of a competitive environment that lays emphasis on the consistent and effective ability for organising. The changes in the competitive environment are responsible for the induction of various organizational forms and Weber describes that organizational forms are generated at various instances in history accompanied by specific sets of technological and social conditions.

For example, the role of communication, transportation in case of contemporary large and complex organizations can be considered as the influence of social and technological conditions on the organizational form. Hence it can be clearly observed that organizational forms are characterized by dynamism and are subject to change according to technological innovations and social frameworks (Anheier, 2014). The example of the industrial era could be considered as an example in this context that involves prominent references to the conditions such as stable environments, prominence of mass markets, emphasis on purely economic objectives and requirements of mass production. The most feasible organizational form that was suited for these conditions was bureaucracy.

However, it is essential to reflect on the question pertaining to the nature of organizational forms in the post-industrial age that is characterized by an emphasis on a knowledge-based economy rather than a manufacturing economy. The structural perspective on organizational forms can facilitate critical insights into the issue through references to universal organizational forms, bureaucracy, contingency theory as well as the dimensions of integration and control (Borkowski, 2015). Universal organizational forms could be identified as outcomes of the influential theories related to organizational design in the earlier stages such as the bureaucratic organizational form or the Multidivisional (M-form).

The common elements that were observed in the universal forms can be identified in their necessity for economic growth as well as stability of developed economies as well as limited constraints and universalistic nature. The underlying organizational principles vested in the universal forms include specialization, hierarchy, utilitarianism and division of labour (Carter, 2016). Another profound characteristic identified in the case of universal organizational form is their normative nature and motivation from influential internal interests. However, it has been observed that depending on a specific framework for designing organizational form could be detrimental for an organization in the context of varying trends in the business environment.

Therefore contingency theory ideas have a substantial role in presenting the paradigm that there is no particular approach for organizing that would deliver similar favourable outcomes for all organizations or all situations. The contingency theory is based on the assumption that the choice of an organizational form should be based on the capabilities of the design to address the objectives of the company (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis, 2015). The theory emphasizes on a systematic review of the relationship between situational and structural variables such as technology, environment and scale of operation. The variables are accounted for variations after a comprehensive analysis of the facets of diversity and predictability associated with them.

New environments:

The large scale improvements in technology and the introduction of flexible instruments for communication have resulted in drastic changes in the business environment. Furthermore, the trends in consumer behaviour, as well as supply and demand, have been changing radically thereby giving rise to new contextual environments in which organizations have to operate (Dredge & Jamal, 2015). One of the examples of a new contextual environment could be identified in the form of ‘Silent Industrial Revolution’ which is associated with distinctive characteristics. Some of the notable aspects that are identified in this context involve deregulation, concerns for environmental awareness, technological disruptions, increasing frequency of acquisitions and mergers, structural changes implied by technological and customer expectation changes as well as limited protectionism.

Furthermore, the post-industrial context is profoundly associated with global competition and the formation of trading blocks. One of the prominent highlights to be observed in the new ‘Silent Industrial Revolution’ context is the aspect of ‘Hypercompetition”. The characteristics of ‘Hypercompetition’ provide further insights into the aspects of the modern organizational context in the post-industrial era (Harper, 2015). Some of the notable factors that are noted in this case include an emphasis on globalization, faster trends integrated into corporate realignment, large scale promotion of different competencies and technologies required for competition, increased fragmentation and flexible and rapid diffusion of technological and scientific innovations.

The new environment is also noted for the frequency of changes in patterns of consumer purchasing behaviour alongside the increase in the number of learning organizations. The outcomes of the new contextual environment have been observed profoundly in the form of the disintegration of industries and vertically integrated structures (Kim, Chen & Linderman, 2015). Therefore organizations had to finalize specific decisions pertaining to the design of organizational forms in order to respond to these changing conditions that were supported with innovation. One of the examples of innovation from organizations was observed in organizational design to derive the examples of the individualized corporation, the virtual organization, boundaryless organization and the process organization.

Innovation has also been applied by organizations in the post-industrial contexts with reforms in structures that can be identified in the examples of delayering for cost-effectiveness, strategic restructuring and novel combinations such as the redesign of operations into autonomous units (Klabbers, 2015). Other initiatives of innovation followed by organizations in the new context could be identified in the form of reforms in-process and boundaries. The examples of changes in the process could be identified in the empowerment of employees and promoting the creation of learning organizations while the examples of changes in boundaries can be identified information of strategic alliances.

Structural perspective:

The structural perspective can provide considerably favourable insights into the prospects of innovation in the organising of post-industrial companies. Prior to evaluation of the structural perspective, it is essential to observe the crucial elements such as organizational structure and design, hierarchy, bureaucracy and the dimensions of integration and control (McCall & Gray, 2014). Organizational structure can be defined as the established precedents for relationships among ordered and regularly occurring activities. The primary indicators of the performance of an organizational structure are observed in the effectiveness of the structural design and the outlining the specific motivations for individuals or groups in order to perform.

Furthermore, the organizational structure is also responsible for outlining the specific objectives of the organization alongside implying the linkage with performance owing to the interdependence of tasks. It is also imperative to observe the specific aspects that are involved with the formal design of an organizational structure that includes references to the division of labour and the division of power (Meyer, Cohen & Nair, 2017). The division of power and authority is characterized by the relationships within an organization in terms of communication and authority and is considered as a crucial dimension of managerial responsibilities. The structure of an organization is also subject to the influence of contingency variables that can be highlighted in terms of strategy, environment, technology and organizational size.

Organizational design has often been confused with structure while it is essential to note that structure is a fixed framework of rules pertaining to decision making in an organization. On the other hand, organizational design is associated with the arrangement of relevant structures that can be feasible for the formation and execution of decisions. The organizational design can be framed through capitalizing on the fundamental options from bureaucratic and flexible organizational forms (Moffitt, 2017). Apart from the combination of distinct elements from each form, the management could imply frequent changes in response to internal and external changes. Control and integration could be observed as primary management tasks with respect to organizational design which is further associated with various dimensions that can be adopted by the organization according to requirement.

The organizational design could be framed through moderation of six key elements referring to specialization, formalization, a span of control, location of decisions and departmentalisation. Formalization reflects on the establishment of job standards while specialization is involved with the division of labour. Departmentalization is associated with the classification of the organizational structure into various departments that can be based on the criteria of function, geography, customer-orientation, process or product (O’Connor & Wynne, 2017). The chain of command reflects on the arrangement of authority and schema for reporting within an organization while the span of control indicates the extent to which authority is distributed within the organization. Location of decisions refers to the point of origin of decisions and is generally observed in two forms such as centralisation and decentralisation.

A structural perspective on organising is also reflective of hierarchy which accounts as the basis for developing organizational structure. Hierarchy is perceived as an inherent entity in society and the natural world. For example, the food chain could be accounted as a hierarchy (Scott & Davis, 2015). The need for a hierarchy in an organization is prominently observed in the distinction among different levels of responsibility and authority. One of the most commonly identified links between hierarchy and organizational forms could be identified in bureaucracy. Bureaucracy can be associated with theoretical implications from Weber’s studies on German central public services that provided an impression of the ideal bureaucratic organizational form.

The characteristics that were observed from the study included references to typically complex hierarchy with focus on competences and accomplishments for professional advancements. The staff is characterised with restricted authority privileges alongside obligations to comply with objectivity in internal and external dealings (Albers, Wohlgezogen & Zajac, 2016). The bureaucracy also reflected explicitly on the associating division of labour with restrictions on the job roles and boundaries. Bureaucracy was preferred in the industrial age organizations on the grounds of advantages such as rational structure, stability, flexibility for calculations and predictability as well as aspects of close control and accountability for different activities.

The structural perspective highlighting bureaucracy would also emphasize on the element of authority and responsibility that imply the influence on authority on the social order in an organization and three types of authority such as traditional authority, rational authority and charismatic authority (Anderson, Bell & Shirky, 2015). Another organizational form could be identified in the functional form which is associated with the grouping of people on the basis of function or occupational contexts. However, the criticisms for bureaucracy were primarily based on its irrelevance with respect to the changing external environment. The two prominent criticisms for bureaucracy could be identified in case of social dysfunction and ineffective form.

The ineffectiveness is perceived on the grounds of restriction on information sharing and communication, lack of flexibility, management costs and extreme conditions for division of labour. The social dysfunction aspects of bureaucracy were identified profoundly in the form of depersonalisation of social and economic life as well as from the theoretical perspective of Merton’s ‘bureaucratic personality’ (Anheier, 2014). Therefore innovative approaches were required for reforming the conventional hierarchical imperatives followed by organizations through minimising hierarchical levels, collective leadership, flexible sharing of information and communication as well as distributed authority and decentralization.

Therefore bureaucracy was reiterated for improved usability depending on the comparative systematic review of technical and social structures thereby leading to the organizational forms such as organic, enabling bureaucratic, autocratic and coercive bureaucratic (Borkowski, 2015). However, firms do not depict substantial proficiency in adopting the novel forms of bureaucracy and are involved with limitations arising from budget, labour market, legal paradigms, social environment and drastic changes in personal and institutional sophistication.

Integration and control:

The aspects of integration and control are perceived as mandatory entities for realizing innovation in organizing for post-industrial organizations. Integration is potentially associated with the factors of coordination, synergy and cohesion with the explicit influence of globalization and the intensity of competition. Some of the specific areas involved in the integration dimension include quality assurance, research and development and marketing (Carter, 2016). The prominent setbacks for integration could be identified in the form of functional, operational, concurrent development, innovation and coordination of professional services. It is essential to believe that organizations in the post-industrial age would be able to leverage the benefits of integration to obtain a competitive advantage through integration and flexible utilization of resources.

The example of the multidivisional or M-form can be ascertained in context of integration wherein the example of Centrica Plc can be presented. Centrica Plc vouches for the integration of the natural gas business with respect to core markets and customers of the company. The control dimension in case of organizational structure is essential for regulating the execution of activities as well as improving the predictability, maintenance of outcome levels and types as well as attainment (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis, 2015). The specific strategies for control include the conventional and new organizational approaches. The conventional approaches include references to personal centralized control, electronic surveillance control and bureaucratic control while the new forms of organizing reflect on cultural control, output control and HRM control.

The selection of control strategies is dependent on employee qualities, contextual factors and the nature of activities undertaken by the organization. Despite the presence of a formal approach to organizational design, the structural perspective has certain limitations which could be identified in emphasis on formal relationships, theoretically ideal structure rather than an implementation plan and authority as the primary source of power (Dredge & Jamal, 2015). This leads to the recognition for characteristics of an informal organization that are associated with distinct characteristics such as involvement in power sharing, unwanted impact of bureaucracy as well as resistance to power and bureaucracy. The informal organization has formed the basis for majority of entrepreneurial ventures that suggest validation for innovative practices in organising of post-industrial organizations.

Design of post-industrial organizations:

The foremost factors that can be identified as crucial entities in the design of the post-industrial organization are vested in the characteristics of the environment. The notable highlights of the post-industrial environment reflect on globalization, demographic changes, and quantum changes in technology, increased turbulence and extra-economic goals (Harper, 2015). The primary characteristics of post-industrial organizations would validate the affirmative statement illustrated in this essay i.e. innovation in organising post-industrial organizations. The organizations are focused on the international market and stakeholders with lateral hierarchies and limited boundaries.

The HR strategies are directed towards employee empowerment while the overall strategic framework of the organizations is characterized with flexibility, continuous improvement, innovation and adaptability. The example for validating the new organizational forms could be identified in the case of INFORM programme with respect to European, Japanese and US firms (Kim, Chen & Linderman, 2015). The new forms depicted characteristics such as supplementing practices for the addition of new principles to the conventional organizational paradigms, novel practice combinations, and subsequent dependence on various organizational practices as well as proactive experimentation.

Post-industrial organizations also depict another innovative change in the context of the formation of new organizational forms through the transition of dualities from integration-differentiation to stability-instability. Management of dualities in post-industrial organizations is also associated with the concerns for innovative approaches to organizing for a fluidity that is observed in three different cases of boundaryless organization, organizational ambidexterity and fluidity/stability duality (Klabbers, 2015). The organization for fluidity could be based on following the approaches for moderating countervailing processes through monitoring stabilisation mechanisms, consistent evaluation and discussion of viability related to problem-solving as well as consistent observation of system operations through the environment.

Management of dualities:

The design of post-industrial organizations is also dependent on the management of dualities that are reflective of various innovative approaches. Dualities are responsible for accounting two distinct principles that can coexist for organizational benefits. Dualities are particularly responsible for promoting innovative organising practices. The common duality system observed in the context of post-industrial organisations is reflective of homogeneity-heterogeneity that emphasises on the dynamics observed in other dualities (McCall & Gray, 2014). Increased heterogeneity between organizational units is affected by the increase in levels of decentralisation and internal competition while homogeneity in the reporting practices is considered as an imperative for maintaining control and decrease complexities.

Therefore the common initiatives for management of dualities could be identified as a reduction of heterogeneity levels and improve the level of homogeneity as well as management of the entire system of dualities. Improvement inhomogeneity would provide feasible prospects for manageability and can be facilitated through increasing control while reduction of heterogeneity could be responsible for the reduction in the perceived complexity (Meyer, Cohen & Nair, 2017). The example of duality management could be obtained in the case of Siemens Medical Engineering. In the context of heterogeneity, empowerment is provided through flexibility for deciding work processes, process-based organization of projects and allocation of resources to competing projects.

On the other hand, homogeneity is increased through maintaining control, following hierarchy in resource allocation, stringent coordination of processes and promoting co-operation through communication forums. Therefore, it can be clearly observed that the management of dualities could be possible through generic approaches that can contribute to the innovative organising of post-industrial organizations with respect to the new context and competition elements (Moffitt, 2017). Limitations on heterogeneity could be facilitated through emphasizing on smaller business areas, coordinating various roles within the organization and decentralisation of the structure.

Homogeneity could be improved substantially through the introduction of ICT, training, managerial transfers and standardized formats for accounting and reporting. Management of the duality between these aspects could be facilitated through improving communication i.e. establishing new language and forums (O’Connor & Wynne, 2017). The management of dualities also presents potential implications for managers in post-industrial organizations which comprise of primary references to innovations such as reflexive organising, empowering individual roles and promoting dynamic learning processes for improving organizational capabilities.

Conclusion:

The essay concluded that post-industrial organizations depict innovation in organising by introducing reforms in the conventional approaches for organising. Reflection on the structural perspective for organizational design provided plausible insights into the elements of control and design as well as the changes in context and competition that imply the requirement for innovative organising. The focus on the management of dualities also facilitated indications towards innovative practices in organising of post-industrial organizations.