Structure Organization

Designing Local e-Government: The Pillars of
Organizational Structure
The Background of Organizational Structures
Israel Patiño Galván,
Downloaded by Australian Catholic University At 08:23 06 April 2019 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document: Israel Patiño Galván, "The Background of
Organizational Structures" In Designing Local e-Government: The Pillars
of Organizational Structure. Published online: 29 Jan 2019; 5-52.
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-227-620191002
Downloaded on: 06 April 2019, At: 08:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription

provided by emerald-srm:401304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication,
then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about
how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for
more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the
benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well
as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The
organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of

download.
1
THE BACKGROUND OF
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
This chapter aims to understand and analyze the background

of organizational structures, their components, and the char-
acteristics that allow the identification of the changes that
they have undergone over the years, and how they have been
molded by their contexts. This chapter also incorporates the
efforts made by the government.
In Chapter One, this is presented in Illustration 1 with
the objective of measuring the scope of the organizational
structures in México, corresponding to the municipal govern-
ments, in order to demonstrate the need to design an organi-
zational structure that integrates information technologies.
1.1 THE BACKGROUND OF ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURES
Organizational structures emerged during the Industrial

Revolution (1760–1840) with the growth of companies and
with the increase in complexity that was needed to organize
them. Since it was not possible to administer them with small
5
6 Designing Local e-Government
Illustration 1. Structure of Chapter One.

Source: Author (2017).
numbers of staff, which made the assignment of functions

complicated, departments had to be expanded spontaneously
and were improvised, until the concepts of scientific admin-
istration appeared with Taylor (Terry & Franklin, 1977),
who defined where the authority over and responsibility for
the administrative process lay and how that separation was
made. As the twentieth century got underway, organizational
structures dominated the field of organizational analysis, the
aims of which were to optimize companies’ processes and
their uses of resources. That study has now moved on to focus
on the analysis of the environments of organizations, the
growth of which encompasses a wide range of organizational
phenomena. Organizational structures also form a core part
of organizations, as they identify how their administration,
execution of policy, and planning is controlled. In this sense,
organizational functioning is based on a theory that com-
pares an organizational structure with a building’s structure
The Background of Organizational Structures 7
(Hall, 1985). However, that analogy itself would be changed

by comparing organizational structures with the human body
and hypothesizing that those structures think, evolve, grow,
and develop. Each of the departments/areas/people collabo-
rate to achieve the same goal and failure to do so damages the
direct or indirect functioning of other areas, in a way that is
proposed by systems theory. As part of a global approach to
achieve the interrelation and integration of the basic aspects

or premises of organizational systems, the theory proposes
the conceptualization of the phenomena that every system,
has an input, a process, and a product, is an autonomous unit
that is related to another superior system, and is able to adapt
and to survive in its characteristic environment by maintain-
ing a continuous exchange of matter, energy, and information
with the environment (Bertalanffy, 1976).
Organizational structures have been linked to administra-
tive theories since their appearance by the models that have
arisen. In these, the scientific and classical theories have con-
tributed where they have considered organizational struc-
tures to be part of organizations’ administrative processes.
That is why the structures have also evolved along with the
emergence of new administrative theories, which have human
resources and their roles within the structures as their focus.
1.2 THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURES
To be able to estimate the importance of organizational struc-

tures, the following definitions are presented as per the fol-
lowing authors:
• An organizational structure is the distribution of people

in different lines, where their positions influence in
relationships (Blau & Peter, 1974).
• An organizational structure is a complex means of control

that is produced and recreated continuously by interaction
but that determines, at the same time, the nature of that
interaction: structures are constituted and constitutive
(Ranson, Stewart, Hinings, & Greenwood, 1980).
• An organizational structure is the way your work is

divided and how these separate activities are coordinated
and integrated. Conventional structures are generally

represented in a diagram consisting of frames and
connecting lines. They show who has the responsibility for
whom and who has authority (Russell, 1996).
• An organizational structure represents and describes the

relationships between members of the organization, which
in turn serves to limit, guide, and anticipate organizational
activities, to increase the effectiveness of operations and
results (Gonzalez, 1999).
From the statements above, it may be concluded that

an organizational structure is based on the segmentation
of activities to achieve the execution of previously planned
activities, where the functions, obligations, and authority of
the members are determined, based on feedback from all the
areas related to each of the specific and general objectives of
the organization.
1.3 COMPONENTS OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURE
Organizational structures are related in terms of their inner

and exterior natures with different factors that require them
to be alert to any interaction and contingency within their
environments. For this, a structure needs certain components,
in order to react optimally, and these components do not

affect an organization’s performance or the achievement of
its objectives. These factors can be analyzed according to four
criteria:
(1) According to the main components or basic parts of

group processes, activities, and tasks.
(2) According to organizational units or centers that

develop differentiated activities.
(3) According to formal and informal relationships, which

connect or communicate to share knowledge.
(4) According to Mintzberg (1983), the structure of an

organization must be the result of the selection of
elements, considering the search for internal and
external consistency, that is, in the design of the
structure, which must take into account the harmony
of internal organizations as the priority of the
organization. Mintzberg provides an outline of the
components of the organization, for which five basic
elements are identified:
• strategic summit;
• operations core;
• middle line;
• support staff;
• techno structure.
The characteristics of the role played by each of the

components are present in all organizations, although these
parts are not always clearly located in the formal structure.
However, they appear constitutively in them, as shown in
Illustration 2.
Illustration 2. Components of the Organizational Structure.

Source: Author (2017), taken from The Structuring of
Organizations, Mintzberg (1979).
In order to distinguish these components within organiza-

tions, a brief explanation of them is presented below:
• Strategic summit. The element that represents the role of

the top management of the company or the function of
an entrepreneur, the strategic summit includes general
management, the rest of the senior managers, as well
as their support staff or personal advisors. Its essential
function is to ensure that the organization functions
adequately to meet its objectives, carrying out the
necessary coordination activities and providing the right
incentives to all members.
• Middle line. The element that represents the role of

middle managers, or executives, or line managers in the
company hierarchy, these controls exist between the top
management and the operational level. According to

Mintzberg, the emergence of the middle line generates
the division of labor between those who administer the
work and those who do it. The fundamental objective
of the middle line is to serve as a link between the top
management and the operations center; therefore, it
becomes a necessity as the organization grows.
• Operating core. The element that includes those jobs

that are directly related to the production of goods
and services, the operational core is the center of any
organization, since it is responsible for executing the basic
activities for which the organization has been created.
Therefore, its correct operation is vital for the company.
The other parts of the company must ensure that the
operations core functions properly.
• Techno structure. The element that represents the role of

analysts, specialists, or experts in the various functions
of management and the economic exploitation of the
company, the techno structure is formed by analysts who
do not participate in the workflow, but who design and
plan it, with the purpose of making the work of the other
participants more effective and productive.
• Support staff. The most diverse component, this consists

of a set of specialized units, which do not directly
participate in the production of goods and services,
but whose objective is to support the organization by
providing specialized tasks and services.
The components respond to the levels of execution of

tasks and activities within the organization, which are com-
plementary to each other, and that start from the organiza-
tional structure for the delimitation of their responsibilities
and obligations.
1.4 CONTINGENCY FACTORS IN THE DESIGN OF

The design of organizational structures has evolved over time,

obeying various factors called “contingencies,” which act as
stimulants for organizations to react and modify their struc-
tures to absorb emerging knowledge, and in other cases to
front them and turn them into competitive advantages in the
short and long terms.

The organizational design is not unique; that is, there is
no specific form of organization, there are different types of
organizational structures that will be analyzed in subsequent
topics. However, it is important to point out that there are
several contingency factors that affect organizational designs.
According to Campos (2007), variables external to the
company, which influence its design, learning, behavior, and
evolution are not isolated; rather, they interact and are com-
plementary, so companies when designing their structures
should make a comprehensive analysis of these internal and
external environmental factors to turn them into advantages.
These contingency factors are:
• antiquity;
• size;
• technology;
• culture;
• environment;
• property;
• power.
Various theoretical approaches to organizational design

have used a multitude of contingency factors, however, for
the purposes of this work, those that are considered by the

author are the most significant, which are: the environment,
technology, size, and the age of the organization, which are
detailed below:
Contingency factors:
• Environment. The environment encompasses everything

that is alien to the organization, the nature of the

products, customers, and competitors, its geographical
situation, the economic, political, and even meteorological
climate in which it must operate, and the technology of
the sector, among other factors. The characteristics or
size of the sector influence the structure and behavior
of the organization; an example is the incorporation of
information technologies, competitiveness, or political
and economic regulations, which will affect efforts at
centralization. Aspects such as marketing, and the stability
and complexity of the environment, have a direct impact
on how to design the organizational structure.
• Age/antiquity. The antiquity of a company is the period

of time in which it has had activities in the market.
Generally, organizational structures through time
undergo various forms of organization. Therefore,
an organization’s antiquity influences and conditions
different aspects of its design, and its own function.
• Size of the company. The size of the organization

affects the design of its structures, both vertically and
horizontally. This means that the greater the size, the
more complex the structure, and also, the larger an
organization is, the more it will require a greater degree
of formalization, defining responsibilities and obligations
regarding its behaviors, with the aim of being able to
control it correctly.
• Technology. Technology includes all of those systems and

administrative and operational processes, which are used
directly or indirectly, to transform production factors into
products or services. The characteristics of this system
condition the structural design and the operation of the
organization. An example of this is the degree of regulation
of the processes, which influence the form of control.
Similarly, if a technological system is sophisticated, it will

require a formal and robust organization.
• Structure. Goals are an important part of an

organization’s strategies; structure should facilitate goal
achievements:
– Simple strategy → simple structure.
– Elaborate strategy → more complex structure.
– Certain structural designs work best with different

organizational strategies:
— Passionate pursuit of innovation → organic.
— Passionate pursuit of cost control → mechanistic.
The influence of the factors on each of the organizational

components, as well as their relationships, which in some
cases affect the structure with more intensity, is staged. In this
is observed that the property and the environment have rel-
evance for the configuration of high commands, and for deci-
sion structures. Antiquity and size influence the middle line
and the support staff.
The culture has a strong impact on the design and results
of the middle managers, in their relations with the techno
structure and in the running of the operational base. Finally,
the technology affects the structure vertically and horizon-
tally, and the way workflows are optimized.
1.5 CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION OF

While it is true that the issues of centralization and decen-

tralization have several applications in matters such as deci-
sion making and process dynamics, their characteristics also
affect in organizational structures, since they contribute to
the distribution of authority within organizations and, conse-
quently, offer one of the best ways to summarize the concept

of structure.
Ranson et al. (1980) consider the organizational struc-
ture as constituted and constitutive. In the case of centrali-
zation, a given distribution of power is constitutive because
it generates other processes. The employees of the organiza-
tions accept the rules and organizational decisions created by
centralization. Centralization is also constituted because the
distribution of power is subject to change as groups and indi-
viduals gain or lose power over time (Hall, 1985).
Centralization describes the degree to which decision
making is concentrated at a single point in the organiza-
tion. If top managers make the organization’s key decisions
with little or no input from below, then the organiza-
tion is centralized. By contrast, the more that lower level
employees provide input or actually make decisions, the
more decentralization there is. Keep in mind that the con-
cept of centralization/decentralization is relative, not abso-
lute, and an organization is never completely centralized or
decentralized.
Few organizations could function effectively if only a
select group of top managers made all its decisions; nor could
they function if all decisions were delegated to employees at
the lowest levels.
Continuing with centralization, this has been defined in dif-
ferent ways, but always emphasizing the distribution of power.
Hage (1980) defines centralization as the level and variety of

participation in strategic decisions made by groups in relation
to the number of groups existing in the organization. For their
part, Van de Ven and Diane (1980) defined centralization as the
framework of decision-making authority within an organiza-
tion. When most decisions are made hierarchically, the organi-
zational unit is considered centralized; a decentralized unit
implies, generally, that the largest source of decision-making

power has been delegated by online administrators to subor-
dinate personnel.
In relation to decentralization, this refers to an organiza-
tional system that is prone to transfer the decision making,
attributions, functions, faculties, activities, and resources
from one unit to another, which is in a situation of certain
subordination (National Autonomous University of Mexico -
UNAM, 2000).
In relation to decentralization, this refers to an organiza-
tional system prone to transfer from one unit to another in
the decision-making, attributions, functions, faculties, activi-
ties, and resources, which are in a situation of certain subor-
dination, but not in a relationship of hierarchy, regarding the
center (University of Latin America - UAL, 2010).
a) Geography or territorial. An organization that has all

its operations under control in one place or zone is
centralized. By contrast, one that has its operations
dispersed throughout the state or the country where
control over their decisions is localized is decentralized.
b) Functional. This occurs when the function of an area

of the organization has an impact throughout the
company and does not modify or change any process of
its responsibility but authorizes it. Additionally, when
you have several areas with the same function, they
can make their own decisions. Regularly, this type of
centralization or decentralization goes hand in hand

with the size and complexity of the organization.
c) Decision making. Some type of centralization and

decentralization is vital for the organization. This refers
to the delegation of authority between departments
and is influenced by the functional and territorial
factors mentioned previously. From the point of view
of administrative theory, this is the most detailed

application of centralization and decentralization.
The most obvious aspect of the many that centralization

supposes is that of making decisions. This can be expressed
in terms of who and when has the authority to make deci-
sions. If most decisions are made by the top management, the
organization is centralized. The degree of centralization of an
organization indicates the vision you have of your staff. In
a highly centralized situation, staff are not trusted to make
decisions. Less centralized situations indicate that there is a
greater disposition to allow personnel to carry out their activ-
ities in an autonomous way (Cliffs, 1975).
It should be noted that what determines the centralization of
organizational structures are not only the qualities of their staff,
such as their academic preparation combined with experience.
The known factors of size, technology, innovation, and environ-
ment are also critical aspects. Hence, these aspects are mentioned
to measure the degree of centralization and decentralization.
• Size. The evidence presented by Blau and Schoenherr (1971)

regarding the relations between size and centralization
are contradictory. They concluded in their study that the
size of an organization produces conflicting pressures
on top management by highlighting the importance of
administrative decisions, which discourages their delegation
and simultaneously increases the volume of administrative
responsibility, which exerts pressure to delegate some of

them. So, the result indicates that decentralization increases
with size. The risk of decentralization is reduced if the staff
is of excellent quality. An example of this can be confirmed
in public or private administrations where decentralization
of decision making occurs with greater success when the
staff have greater preparation, experience, and willingness.
Otherwise, it can be seen in small companies where

specialists report directly to the top management of the
organization.
• Technology. Decentralized work with controls is routine

in terms of technology (Child, 1973). Dornbush and
Scott (1975) indicated that this contributes to the
analysis, in respect of technology, that centralization has
a variety of tasks that vary in their clarity, predictability,
and effectiveness. Technology is a factor that has
revolutionized and fostered decentralization and has been
the means developed to achieve it. The variety of tasks
carried out by an organization will mean that it has to
have multiple technologies and that, consequently, it must
be structured in a decentralized way.
• Environmental factors. A crucial aspect is also the

competition that an organization faces in the environment.
Negandhi and Reimann (1972) suggested that conditions
of competition in the market make decentralization more
important for organizational success than in situations
of less competition. The degree of centralization of other
organizations is closely associated with decentralization,
based on the factors of size, technology, and market
competitiveness, and that the perceptions of decision makers
in organizations are a mediating variable between the
organization and the environment. It is concluded that a
more competitive environment leads to greater control and
coordination, more emphasis on written communications,

and greater specification of the procedures for decision
making. Thus, there is a much higher degree of
centralization (Pfeffer, Salancik, & Leblebici, 1978).
Another aspect of the organizational environment is its
degree of stability, according to Whetten (1980). Burns and
Stalker (1971) and Whetten and Howard (1979) argued
that decentralization is more appropriate for a medium in

conditions of turbulence or instability, while others such as
Hawley and Rogers (1974) are in favor of centralization
in these situations. Decentralization may be a more
appropriate suggestion to deal with turbulence in a growth
situation, while centralization may be necessary in periods
of contraction.
• Innovation. The consequences of centralization in

organizations have much to say about the society in which
they are immersed. A society in which most organizations
are highly centralized is one in which workers have a
greater degree of preparation and experience, giving rise to
innovation generation within administrative and operational
areas and processes (Blau & Schoenherr, 1971).
The consequences of a high degree of centralization can

be positive or negative for the organization, depending on
the situation. Consequently, a major problem is that it is not
always possible to adjust the degree of centralization to adapt
to a constantly changing situation. The consequences of cen-
tralization in the organizational process are (Cliffs, 1975):
• Coordination
– Advantages:
— Greater coordination through a central management

and uniform policies.
– Disadvantages:
— Uniform policies are used regardless of the degree of
variation of local conditions.
• Decision making: perspective
– Advantages:
— The whole company is considered when decisions
are taken at the administrative top and when

administrators at lower levels take them within the
parameters established in the policies defined by the
matrix company.
– Disadvantages:
— It is possible that the company’s perspective ignores
the characteristics and special problems of the
divisions, departments, and work units.
• Decision making: speed
– Advantages:
— In emergencies, officials and the central
administration can mobilize information and make
decisive decisions without delay.
– Disadvantages:
— There are delays in the normal decision process; the
flow of information up and the flow of orders down
takes time; the staff are often overburdened and so
decisions are delayed even more.
1.6 RESISTANCE TO AND HANDLING OF CHANGES

IN THE MODIFICATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURES
When talking about changes in daily life, this means not only
an opportunity for improvement but a whole process that
responds to an objective. By this process, the direct and indi-

rect factors involved must be identified, in order to reduce
risks, and generate strategies to ensure that the change is
implemented successfully so that it stimulates its evolution
in a continuous manner. In this sense, organizational struc-
tures also suffer implications when changes are made, and
one of the central ones is the adaptation to these made by
human resources, which can help to maximize their benefit

or simply make it more complicated, to the extent of convert-
ing the change into failure. Thus, changes in organizational
structures must be accompanied by strategies to ensure their
implementation.
In order to ensure the success of changes in organizational
structures, it is necessary to identify the factors that could
facilitate their implementation in relation to this. According
to Argyris and Schön (1978), organizational changes will
produce some effects among their members, since virtually
no change is generated without encountering resistance at
some or all of its stages. In this sense, it is the responsibility of
the administrator to find out the sources or reasons for that
resistance to be able to handle it successfully down the line.
The fundamental reasons for resistance to change by people
are sometimes rational, but very often they are also emotion-
al, or they can be both, although the factors that influence
the resistance are varied and depend on the type of change
being made and its context. Some sources of resistance are
presented in Illustration 3.
To identify the common sources of resistance, they are
described below (Argyris & Schön, 1978):
• Fear. Some people may imagine that they will not be able
to develop the capabilities that the coming change needs.
Change replaces the security and stability of the known
with ambiguity and uncertainty toward the unknown.
Illustration 3. Sources of Resistance. Source: Author (2017),

taken from Organization and Organizational Structure
(Argyris & Schön, 1978).
• Created interests. These exist where people whose work

situation has to do with interpersonal relationships and
their salaries, schedule, knowledge, and greater efforts are
conditioned to enable their permanence. If an employee
feels a sense that the change may end in his dismissal,
change of schedule, greater effort, change of area, or
losing his status, he will resist.
• Lack of understanding. If people do not know or do not

understand the change that is intended and its implications,
they will avoid that imposition. For this reason, it is very
important that administrators clearly communicate the
reasons for change and the steps that are expected of them
and that they do not feel insecure about the unknown.
• Differences of perception. A change is a solution to

current problems, or a consequence of a decision, an
internal/external variable to the organizational structure.

However, workers may perceive that the changes will not
represent a substantial improvement but they will generate
more problems than they solve. These people, with the
best will and loyalty toward the company, will oppose the
changes because they perceive that they are not necessary.
• Lack of resources. The resources that the organizations

possess are, limited and for their part, the changes require
the efficient use of those resources. It is the duty of the
administrators to scope the change, to adjust to the reality
of the organization.
• Legal obstacles. Legal regulations or agreements, such

as collective bargaining agreements, can be a barrier
to change by forcing the organization to follow certain
guidelines in terms of hiring, firing, and retirement that
cannot be overlooked by administrators. Thus, in these
cases, it is necessary that any planned change is prepared
with these types of adjustments or negotiations foreseen,
even in relation to aspects of the care of the environment.
• Lack of training/academic preparation. In some cases, a

lack of training/academic preparation makes it impossible
for staff to visualize that changes will complement their
work, by making them transparent, optimizing times,
and eliminating human errors. If staff do not have that
insight because of a lack of training and preparation, they
will oppose changes without reflecting on any current
conditions of work stress, lack of transparency, slow work
attention, and other problems.
Once some factors of resistance have been identified, it is

important to propose how they can be managed progressively or
implemented directly, depending on the reaction of the employ-
ees and the objective of the organization’s top management.
The handling of resistance is positive when it allows a com-

plete and balanced view of situations and reduces or avoids
mistakes. However, in situations in which the resistance to
change is negative, senior management needs to change the
methods they use to effect change. The following alternatives
are suggested for the management of resistance (Argyris &
Schön, 1978):
– Education. An appropriate method when people

resist change due to a lack of information or a
misunderstanding of the reasons, procedures, or
objectives of the changes, even if this method is well
on track, it is the ideal way to accept the change
and continue proposing improvements to the same
(evolution). The disadvantage is that the education
process usually takes time and generates expenses.
In addition to choosing educators, deciding on an
educational profile and course content is not easy.
– Participation. It is common for human beings to reject

changes if we feel them to be an imposition. However,
when they have the perception that they are part of
the process, the staff can feel involved and accept the
new methodology as their own. It is for this reason
that encouraging participation is a good method for
reducing resistance to change. It is also useful when
top management has indispensable information with
which to design the nature of the participation and the
participants can enrich the solutions.
– Negotiation. This is not a recommended method, since

it involves interacting with the potential resistance
agents to reach an agreement, which can lead to
subjectivities and the partial application of changes,
which delays or distorts the objective of the change.
There are other ways to resolve conflicts arising from the

implementation of change, as indicated below:
• Degree of predicted resistance. The greater the resistance,

the more difficult it will be to overcome it. Participation
and education are the best means when the expected
resistance is strong.
• Power of those who oppose resistance. The more power

reluctant staff have, the more it will be necessary to
involve them in change and have them participate in it.
• Need for information held by opponents of the change.

The greater the need to engage staff in such changes, the
greater the need for managers to seek participation and
education.
• Need for short-term change. If the organization

must implement a rapid change, it could suffer great
consequences, so it will surely have to resort to
negotiation and education.
• Evaluation of medium- and long-term effects. Education

and participation have fewer long-term negative effects,
unlike negotiation, which is faster, but comes with greater
implications. In each situation, the change manager must
choose the method or combination of methods that is
most promising.
As has been observed, education and participation are the

most objective means, with better results, for securing the
acceptance of change, in which not only the success of its
implementation is achieved. In addition, continuous improve-
ment and evolution are achieved, since employees participate
directly in the changes and are the ones who, through train-
ing and participation, make proposals to senior management
concerning the implementation of changes.
1.7 LIFE CYCLE OF ORGANIZATIONS
The development of the organization has different stag-

es of maturity, as described by Gareth (2008) and Adizes
(1994), in which its behavior, complexity, and interaction
with internal and external variables becomes dynamic.
It is constantly required to innovate in its processes and
mechanisms and, above all, it has to have an organiza-
tional structure designed to respond to this requirement.

That is why, in this topic, two models of organizational life
cycle and a third proposed by the author will be exposed.
In the latter, a proposal will be made integrating organi-
zational structures and contingency factors in stages. This
model, unlike the first two, refers to the evolution of the
organization where there is a cycle of continuous maturity
of the companies, for without this assumption there may
be stages of decline.
1.7.1 Gareth’s Organizational Life Cycle Model
Organizations go through different stages at different rates

and some do not experience them all. There are substages of
growth and decline, which mean that the organization can
face changes in the internal/external environment, which
determine the stages of the life cycle of the company.
According to Gareth, organizations experience a sequence
of stages such as those that follow (Gareth, 2008):
• birth;
• growth;
• decline;
• death.
To understand more about this model, its stages are

described below:
(1) Birth. Organizations are born when individuals, called

“entrepreneurs,” recognize and take advantage of
opportunities to use their skills and competencies to
create value. The birth of an organization is a dangerous
stage of the life cycle and is associated with the highest
probability of failure. The failure rate is high because

new organizations experience the disadvantage of
novelty; that is, they face the dangers of being first in an
environment. Another reason why birth is a dangerous
stage is that environmental conditions can be hostile
to the new organization (resources may be scarce or
difficult to obtain).
(2) Increase. The growth of a company is considered a

fundamental component when defining its strategy, since
internal and external customers, suppliers, competitors,
and potential investors interpret it as a sign of health,
vitality, and strength. As companies grow, they give
the idea of a continuous progression, a feeling of not
being stagnant and of having possibilities of future
development. In highly competitive environments such
as the current one, growth has become a necessary
condition for the company to maintain and grow at a
faster rate than its competitors, in order to achieve a
better positioning in the market. Organizational growth
is the stage of the life cycle in which organizations
develop skills to create further value and skills. Growth
allows them to increase their division of tasks and
specialization and develop a competitive advantage.
(3) Decline and Death. Decline and organizational

death are the stages of the cycle that an organization
enters when it fails to anticipate, recognize, avoid,

neutralize, or adapt to the pressures of internal or
external variables that threaten its long-term survival.
Sometimes, the decline and death occur because
organizations grow a lot. There is a tendency for
organizations to grow beyond the point that maximizes
their effectiveness. There are two factors that cause an
organization to grow a lot or grow in a way that leads

to a decline:
(a) organizational inertia and
(b) environmental changes.
1.7.2 Ichak Adizes’s Life Cycle Model
Adizes (1994) describes the 10 stages of the life cycle of an

organization. Within these, all the emotional aspects of work-
ing life can be identified, which affect the health of an organi-
zation and ultimately its existence:
(1) Engagement. The first stage of the development of

an organization is the engagement stage, when the
organization is not yet born, and it is just an idea. In
this stage, the emphasis is on the ideas and possibilities
that the future offers. The company does not physically
exist yet.
(2) Childhood. Once the risk is assumed, the nature of the

organization changes drastically. It has to cover its risks.
The company moves from ideas and possibilities to
the generation of results to meet certain needs, which
is why the organization was created. The main interest
is no longer in ideas but in how to achieve results. The
most urgent need is to sell and to create opportunities
to increase revenue. There is a greater vision of the

opportunities presented. Being willing to take risks,
decisions are made intuitively and often without
experience. The organization grows quickly and hires
personnel regardless of their specializations since they
are required to work in a wide variety of jobs.
(3) Growth. The organization enters a stage of rapid growth.

The founding partners believe themselves incapable of

making mistakes. They get involved in all the decisions
and, as a result, they end up having problems because
they look for almost contradictory objectives at the same
time. The company is organized around people and not
tasks. It grows in an unplanned way. The organization
reacts to opportunities, does not plan, organize, or position
itself to explore the future opportunities it creates. The
organization does not control its environment, but it is
controlled by it. The behavior is reactive and not proactive;
consequently, tasks are assigned according to availability
and not necessarily according to the competencies of the
people involved. In these early stages, the responsibility
for the growth of the organization rests with the founder.
More than management knowledge, you must have an
unwavering motivation and will to face the problems
inherent in those phases.
(4) Adolescence. In adolescence, there is the separation

of the organization from its founder. This stage is
characterized by conflict and inconsistency. The
transition between the stages of growth and adolescence
is difficult for three reasons:
(a) The delegation of authority.
(b) The change of leadership.
(c) The rethinking of goals.
(5) Fullness. This stage is characterized by a clarity of vision

and mission, and a balance between flexibility and
control. It is the optimum point of the life cycle and its
main characteristics are:
• Functional systems and organizational structure.
• Institutionalized vision and creativity.
• Result-based orientation.
• The organization plans and tracks the plans.
• Its performance is excellent thanks to its forecasting
capacity.
• The organization can increase sales and profitability
at the same time.
• The organization gives life to new organizations.
(6) Stability. Stability is the first of the stages of aging in the

organizational life cycle. The company is still strong, but
it begins to lose its flexibility. It supposes the end of its
growth and the beginning of its decay. The organization
begins to lose its spirit of creativity, its innovation, and
the propensity to change that took it to its fullness.
Organizations of this type are increasingly clinging to
precedents and to the security of what worked in the
past.
(7) Aristocracy. This stage is characterized by the following

patterns of behavior:
(a) The money is invested in the control systems,

benefits, and facilities.
(b) The emphasis is on how things are done and not on

what is done or why it is done.
(c) The level of internal motivation is low.

The corporation can buy other companies to acquire

new products and markets, or even to acquire
entrepreneurial capacity. The organization obtains
profits. Frequently, it is a potential target for companies
that want to absorb it. The decline in flexibility, initiated
during its period of fullness, has a far-reaching effect:
at a given moment, the ability to achieve and produce
results must also fall. The aristocratic company denies

the current reality. Although it is losing market share
and progressively increasing its inability to compete,
in terms of products or marketing skills, its members
maintain an attitude of running the business as usual.
Aristocracies, in general, try to increase their profits to
increase their incomes, but not by cutting their costs.
They get more money, not by increasing their sales per
unit, but by increasing their prices.
(8) Principles of bureaucracy. In the early bureaucracy

stage, the following characteristics are typical of the
behavior of organizations:
(a) The emphasis is on who caused the problem, and

not on what to do about it.
(b) Conflicts and internal struggles abound.
(c) Paranoia freezes the organization.
(d) The center is distracted by internal struggles; the

external client is a nuisance.
The innovative spirit and the desire to produce and/or
sell have diminished. Finally, will come the time when
sales or profits or both decrease.
(9) Bureaucracy. In the bureaucratic stage, the company

does not generate sufficient resources by itself. It does
not justify its existence through good functioning, but

merely by the fact of existing. It can only delay death by
living connected to artificial support systems. What is
the bureaucratic organization like?
(a) It has an abundance of systems, with little

functional orientation.
(b) It lives dissociated from its environment, focused on

itself.
(c) There is no sense of self-control.
(d) Its systems yield poor functional results.
(10) Death. It may be years before its death. Death occurs

when no one is still committed to the organization.
The smart or ambitious left the organization a long
time before. The weak remain: those who cannot leave
and the newly hired. The organization passes its days
remembering the good times and tries to analyze why it
failed and not how to improve.
1.7.3 Organizational Life Cycle Model –

Evolutionar y
The proposed model is based on the models presented by

Gareth (2008) and Adizes (1994), and although it is very sim-
ilar. The difference is that it integrates the evolution phase,
which acts as a breakwater between the phases of develop-
ment and maturity, which allows the company to readjust
itself, and to remain operating between the phases of develop-
ment and maturity. In this proposal, the contingency factors,
as well as the types of structure, play an important role in the
life cycle process (see Illustration 4).
Illustration 4. Proposed Model of the Evolutionary Life Cycle.

Stages of the life cycle proposed:
• Start. This is the phase in which the organization is born,

as the result of studies, analyses, and interpretations that
guide the entrepreneurs to create a company and put
it into operation, to be able to cover a need. As Adizes
(1994) comments, this stage is dangerous, since it is
associated with its immediate extinguishment, and thus
fails due to diverse circumstances such as the internal and
external environment, bad planning, and competition,
among other factors. The type of structure common in
this phase, determined by the levels of complexity and
activities, is simple or functional. The organization is
geared for the accomplishment of basic activities. As
for its state of centralization, this is concentrated, since
the company needs to know about any activity being
undertaken and makes all the corresponding decisions.
• Growth. In this stage, the organization has shown that the

company has been able to overcome the uncertainty phase
of the market, and that its product or service has been
able to satisfy certain needs. At this stage the company
learns and generates experience and skills. Added to

this, the organization is expected to be more complex
in all areas of its activities, so it must take advantage of
internal and external variables to simplify its tasks and
any responsibilities that appear. At this stage, the most
common type of organizational structure is functional/
divisional. Finally, it is moderately centralized, since the
company is growing, and the centralized decision-making

process begins slowly.
• Development. Whereby this stage, the organization has

managed to generate knowledge, which allows it to
stabilize and start with the creation phase of ideas to
solve problems that are presented by complexity. It creates
new departments and uses technology to systematize
internal and external processes. It initiates processes of
innovation and creates new products or services using
its existing infrastructure. It is difficult to think that at
this stage the company could be extinguished, unless it is
absorbed by a larger company, which sees it as a risk to
the development of its own organization as it begins to
become competitive. The type of structure in this phase
corresponds to a divisional/matrix structure. It starts with
moderate decentralization in terms of decision making
and processes, due to the increase in the complexity of the
organization.
• Evolution. This is a transitional stage designed to achieve

the permanent development of the organization. At this
stage, innovation processes that had been visualized
in the previous stage materialize, are rethought and
rematerialized. New internal and external processes
based on reengineering, benchmarking, and the use of
technologies in most of the departments and branches
of the company, are introduced in such a way that
the company will remain in the development process

constantly. The type of structure suggested given the
changes presented in the organization are red/virtual.
Now, the degree of decentralization is concentrated, since,
due to the increase in the complexity of the activities and
decision making in each area, the flow of the processes
and rapid responding are decisive.
• Maturity. At this stage, the company has managed to

stay in the market and compete, having a portfolio of
customers that allows it to continue with an acceptable
sales volume. However, it has lagged in the updating
of its processes, its use of technologies, and its creation
and materialization of innovations, to the degree that it
is beginning with the phase of decline. However, if the
company resumes updating processes, modernizing its
operational and administrative processes, allowing it
to reorient its efforts to continue competing, retaining,
and gaining new consumers, this will allow it to return
cyclically and permanently to the stage of evolution and
development. At this stage, the type of organization is
red/virtual/divisional/matrix. Because it is in a process
of rethinking and evolving, in this sense its degree of
decentralization is moderate.
• Slope. In this phase, the organization loses markets. It has

failed in its forecasting and planning, competition has
taken away an important segment of customers, reducing
profits and increasing losses. The internal and external
variables cannot face them, which implies continuing
to have losses. At this stage, other organizations try to
buy this company, trying to rescue the popularity it once
had and reform its processes, its inclination to innovate,
and so on, or simply to complete its disappearance and
take advantage of the little infrastructure that remains.
Its organizational structure is established as divisional/

matrix/network, while the degree of centralization is
moderate, given its decline, slowness in decision making,
and the failing flow of its processes.
• Extinction. At this stage, the organization has lost

most of its clients, there is no interest in recovering
them, there is no commitment from its workers, and
its debts make it unable to invest in new projects.

It simply resorts to operating and generating the
little production demanded by the customers it
still has. The company is weak and ends up being
extinguished. The organizational structures inherited
from previous stages, continue to be employed, and
these are divisional/matrix/functional. Finally, given
the suppression of activities, and the dependence on
the decision making of the company, the degree of
centralization is concentrated.
In this model, the contingency factors play an impor-

tant role in the life cycle of the organization; however,
this does not mean that it is a condition of its application,
since it depends on the context in which the organization
is existing.
In addition, it is considered important to try to suggest the
types of structures of organizations in each one of the stages
of the life cycle, derived from the growth in the complexity
of the organization, as it advances through the several stages.
Finally, and derived from the complexity that is increasing at
each stage, a relationship between the centralization and/or
decentralization of the structures is presented.
To do this, Table 1 is presented, in order to identify the
factors that have the greatest influence, determine the types
of organization structures, and their levels of centralization/
decentralization.
Table 1. Life Cycle of Companies and Their Relationships with Contingency Factors and Types of Organizational
Structures.
Lifecycle Contingency Factors Type of Organizational Structure Centralization/Decentralization
Start • Size • Simple • Centralization
• Property
• Culture
• Environment
Growth • Antiquity • Functional • Centralization
• Size
• Property
• Culture
• Environment
Development • Antiquity • Divisional • Centralization
The Background of Organizational Structures
• Size • Matrix • Decentralization

• Property
• Culture
• Environment
• Power
• Technology
Evolution • Antiquity • Net • Decentralization
37
• Size • Virtual
• Property
Table 1. (Continued)

38
Lifecycle Contingency Factors Type of Organizational Structure Centralization/Decentralization

• Culture
• Environment
• Power
• Technology
Maturity • Antiquity • Net • Centralization
• Size • Virtual • Decentralization
• Property • Divisional
• Culture • Matrix
• Environment
• Power
• Technology
Slope • Antiquity • Divisional • Centralization
• Size • Matrix • Decentralization
• Property • Net
• Culture
• Environment
Extinction • Antiquity • Divisional • Centralization
• Property • Matrix
• Culture • Functional
Designing Local e-Government
• Environment
1.8 CLASSIFICATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL

STRUCTURES
The type of structure is determined by the size of the organi-

zation and the staff that compose it, which is why it is cru-
cial what the forms of organization are between each of the
areas that comprise it. Therefore, there are varied types of
structures.
A simple and easy-to-understand identification is presented

in Table 2, with the following classification (Campos, 2007).
To understand how these structures are conceptualized,
and to present factors that affect the organizational design
called “contingency factors,” the following are the main
organizational structures (Valenzuela, 2013).
1.8.1 Simple Structure
This can be considered as a nonformal structure. In a simple

structure, the organization is governed by the personal con-
trol of an individual. It is the kind of organization common
to many small businesses. Usually, an owner assumes most of
the managerial responsibility, perhaps with a partner or an
assistant. However, there is a narrow division of managerial
Table 2. Main Organizational Structures.

Forms Structures
Simple Simple
Functional
Classic complexes Divisional
Matrix
Source: Author (2017), taken from The Organization of
Companies (Campos, 2007).
Illustration 5. Simple Organizational Structure.

Source: Author (2017), taken from The Evolution of the

Design and the Organizational Structure (Valenzuela, 2013,
p. 74).
responsibility, and probably an unclear definition of who is

responsible in situations in which there is more than one per-
son involved (see Illustration 5).
Normally, this type of structure appears when the company
is small and its degree of complexity is low, so that decision
making is centralized, the areas that exist share responsibili-
ties with others, given the staff available and the activities car-
ried out. However, as these grow, the organization recognizes
a need to initiate the definition of roles.
1.8.2 Functional Structure
This is an organizational design that groups occupational

specialties and is based on the primary activities that must
be carried out, such as production, finance, and accounting,
marketing, and personnel. It is a functional approach during
which departmentalization is applied to the entire organiza-
tion (see Illustration 6). It is used in organizations of an indus-
trial type that have put their emphases on the principles or
parameters of the horizontal design and are pursuing admin-
istrative rationality and the increase of economic productivity.
Illustration 6. Functional Organizational Structure.

p. 74).
In this type of structure, the company has already defined

the main roles of the organization, as well as the definition of
responsibilities and functions, to avoid duplication of work,
and to direct its efforts to responding to the activities that are
increasing.
1.8.3 Divisional Structure
This divides the organization into partially autonomous units

or divisions depending on the products, services, geographi-
cal areas, or processes of the company (see Illustration 7).
The division usually emerges as an attempt to overcome the
problems of functional structures when it comes to solving
the problems arising from diversification.
This structure is the result of the increase of complex activi-
ties, new business units, geographical expansion, new products,
or market expansion. Where it is required to define coordinated
activities, decision making involves several departments.
Illustration 7. Divisional Organizational Structure.

Source: Author (2017), taken from The Evolution of the Design
and the Organizational Structure (Valenzuela, 2013, p. 75).
1.8.4 Matrix Structure
A matrix structure is a combination of structures that usu-

ally take the form of geographical and product divisions, or
functional and divisional structures that operate simultane-
ously (see Illustration 8). Matrix structures may be preferred
because there is more than one conditioning factor for the
type of structure that makes the functional structures or func-
tional or divisional structures unsuitable.
The matrix model can be considered as an important sys-
tem of liaison or coordination in the organization, integrating
various lateral relationships. Thus, matrix structures generally
improve the quality of decision making in situations where there
are risks that affect one of the vital interests of the organization
that dominates the strategy at the expense of other interests.
Derived from the above, a comparative table between the
different structures of the main organizations is presented by
the next points (Valenzuela, 2013, p. 38):
Illustration 8. Matrix Organizational Structure.

p. 75).
• Simple structure
– Strengths:
— Flexibility
— Sense of mission
– Weak points:
— Owner/Manager’s dependency
— Little specialization
• Functional
– Strengths:
— Specialization
— Formalization
– Weak points:
— Low flexibility
— Inadequate in diversified companies
• Divisional
– Strengths:
— Orientation to the environment
— Existence of profit centers
• Weak points:
— Information asymmetries
— Problems of coordination of divisions
• Matrix
– Strengths:
— Support for creativity and innovation
— Ability to cope with very dynamic environments
– Weak points:
— Double authority
— Dedication to meetings and conflict resolution
1.8.5 New Organizational Structures
Organizational structures over time have been adapted to

the international context and dynamics, which are due to
globalization, competitiveness, optimization, specialization,

and, over decades, to the growing influence of information
technologies, to the extent of being directly integrated
into the design of organizational structures such as virtual
organizational structures. That requires maturity, experience,
and a high degree of modernization in all the processes of
an organization, so that it works properly. Continuing with
organizational structures, new forms of organization are as

follows (Padilla & Del Águila, 2003):
• Adhocracy: Mintzberg (1983); Malone and Rockart

(1991);
• Post-industrial organization: Huber (1984);
• Circular organization: Ackoff (1996);
• Internal market: Malone, Yates, and Benjamin (1987);

Ouchi (1980);
• Hierarchy: Hedlund (1986);
• Organization in networking: Miles and Snow (1986);

Eccles and Crane (1987); Barlett and Ghoshal (1993);
• Federal organization: Handy (1992);
• Knowledge-based organization: Badaracco (1991);
• Cluster organization: Miles, Rebirth of the Corporation

(1991);
• Open corporation: Wagner (1991);
• Virtual organization: Davidow and Malone (1992);

Bridges (1994);
• Internal network: Snow, Miles, and Coleman (1992);
• Infinitely flat organization: Quinn (1992);
• Technocracy: Burris (1993);

• Horizontal organization: Ostroff and Smith (1992);
• Post-bureaucratic form: Heckscher (1994);
• N-form: Hedlund (1994);
• Lateral organization: Galbraith (1994);
• Hypertextual structures: Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995);

• Platform or flat structure: Ciborra (1996;
• T-form: Lucas (1996);
• Cellular: Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles, and Coleman

(1997);
• Fractal structures: Morales (1999);
Having mentioned these organizational structures, some

definitions of some of them are presented below, in order to
identify their objective and general characteristics.
(a) Adhocracy organization structure
This type of structure seeks innovation as an objective;
therefore, it focuses on omitting the typical order, engendering
a creative environment, which fosters new ideas, without the
need for formal behavior, planning, or control systems. This
method of work allows different opinions and ideas to con-
verge for all team members, generating a work environment
where change and progress are the only constant, allowing
employees to feed each other, regardless of differences in their
working fields, actions or professions (Mintzberg, 1983).
(b) Circular organizational structure
This type of organization chart is recommended because
it encourages human relationships, Additionally, This type of
structure has as its highest hierarchy located in the center of a
series of concentric circles, each of which represents a differ-
ent level of authority, which decreases from the center to the
ends. The last circle indicates the lowest level of authority in
the hierarchy. The units of equal hierarchy are located on the

same circle, and the hierarchical relationships are indicated
by the lines that join the figures (Miles & Snow, 1986; (Rus-
sell, 1996).
(c) Hierarchical organizational structure
Also known as a vertical organizational structure, it is an
organizational structure in which command and subordinate
levels are perfectly located. The higher the level in the struc-
ture, the greater are the authority and responsibility sited
there. Each entity in the organization is subordinated to a
single entity (Hedlund, 1994).
(d) Federal organizational structure
This structure is an evolved variant of the divisional structure,
since it is based on the coalition of quasi-companies. In turn,
each of the decentralized units could be structured in the shape
of a clover. This model, developed by Handy (1992), is appropri-
ate for large, diversified business groups at a multinational level.
Divisions or companies that carry out diversification and inter-
nationalization follow the instructions of the central unit that is
responsible for the strategic plan (Russell, 1996).
(e) Organizational structure based on knowledge
This structure, which gathers information from various
sources, converts it into knowledge using intelligence and
interpretation, and can therefore drive better efficiency in
the enterprise. It is a structure in which the generation and
exploitation of knowledge is the major ingredient in the crea-
tion of wealth (Badaracco, 1991).
(f) Hypertext organizational structures
The approach of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) starts
from a knowledge creation model that is disseminated in the
organization through the dynamic interaction between indi-
viduals, which allows the transformation of tacit knowledge
into explicit knowledge and vice versa. Emerging from this
continuous cycle is a spiral of knowledge.
(g) T-form organizational structure

The design of this type of organizational structure is based
on information technology (IT). The types of organization
that adapt most to the use of technological variables are
t-form or technology-form organizations, which are organi-
zations that use IT to become highly efficient and effective.
The technological infrastructure of the t-form company has
computer networks. The workstations of individual clients

connect through a network to create larger teams that act
as servers. The networks have access doors to national and
international networks so that the members of the company
can connect with customers, suppliers, and others with whom
they need to interact. This model of a t-form company shows
to what extent the administrator can apply IT to the transfor-
mation of the organization (Lucas, 1996).
Finally, the following sections present the detailed charac-
teristics of two organizational structures: the network struc-
ture and the virtual structure. These will serve as a preamble
to the proposal, since they present characteristics that take up
from predecessor structures and combine the current context
of competitiveness and globalization.
1.8.6 Organizational Network Structure
It represents the fragmentation of the company by the segre-

gation of activities, substituting the activities integrated in a
conventional way for agreements between companies and for
all types of links between companies. The network organiza-
tion would be defined as
A framework that serves as a basis for the

simultaneous, coordinated, balanced, and integrated
operation of more than one organization, since
it presents the various inter-organizational

relationships existing between the different elements
that make [it] up.
These interrelations include technicians and behavior, based

on the conditioning factors and the components that influence
their own design (Carley, 1999; Valenzuela, 2013, p. 77).
An observed trend is that organizations are dismantling
their activities, due inter alia to the lower costs of electronic

interconnection with other companies, suppliers, or custom-
ers. This is causing companies to shift gradually toward more
market-based structural configurations, with some special-
ized functions carried on in hierarchical organizations, and
it demonstrates the challenge for companies to manage such
interdependence effectively (Rockart & Short, 1989). In this
sense, a dynamic network is the cause and result of the current
competitive environment. The characteristics of this kind of
dynamic network include vertical disaggregation (i.e., activi-
ties that were previously carried out within an organization
are now done outside, by independent organizations).
Networks may be complex and dynamic depending on
competitive circumstances, such as those listed as follows
(Miles & Snow, 1986):
(a) Intermediaries (business groups agree through
intermediaries since the activities are done by a single
organization).
(b) Market mechanisms (the main functions are carried out
jointly, employing market mechanisms rather than plans
and control).
(c) Contracts and payouts are used more than reports of
progress or personal supervision.
(d) State-of-the-art information systems (computerized
information systems with up-to-date information).
1.8.7 Virtual Organizational Structure
Virtual organizational structures are geographically dis-

persed, temporary, or permanent sets of individuals, groups,
organizational units, or complete organizations that are
dependent on electronic unions to complete a productive
process (Travica, 1997). It is important to emphasize the
importance of information and communication technolo-

gies for the effectiveness of the activities carried out by
the virtual organization (Padilla & Del Águila, 2003) (see
Illustrations 9 and 10).
This structure provides for the expansion of the company’s
activities, without this representing an additional expense, so
it provides for savings of resources. However, to achieve this
kind of structure, an organization must have technological
infrastructure, information, and historical knowledge, in
addition to possessing expert personnel to continue with the
learning process, so that the virtual structure can perform
its functions. This type of virtual structure allows for the
Illustration 9. Evolution of the Traditional Structure to the

Virtual. Source: Author (2017), taken from Padilla and Del
Águila (2003) and Valenzuela (2013).
Illustration 10. Characteristics of the Virtual Organization.

Source: Author (2017) taken from ‘The Evolution of
Organizational Forms, from Simple Structure to Networking
and Virtual Organization’ (Padilla & Del Águila, 2003, p. 83).
modification of the real concept of organizations, by enabling

them to expand their physical structures horizontally and
vertically, which can then operate and/or collaborate with
virtual structures (see Illustration 9).
Virtual organizational structures present a series of charac-
teristics that potentiate their functioning, which are identified
at the time of their design and operation (see Illustration 10).
To these characteristics, we must add three, given the inter-
national context and competitiveness of organizations, which
have come to demand greater strength in the creation of vir-
tual structures. These extended characteristics can be seen in
Illustration 11.
Illustration 11. Extended Characteristics of the Virtual

Organization. Source: Author (2017).
Finally, several types of virtual organizations are consid-

ered, which helps with the comprehension of their dimensions
(Palmer & Speier, 1997): permanent virtual organizations,
virtual teams, virtual projects, and temporary virtual organi-
zations. In these, the double dimension of the concept (inter-
nal and external) and the generality of its application is
observed, since they are gathered from structures formed ad-
hoc by work teams for networks of permanent companies
that form a permanent virtual organization (Padilla & Del
Águila, 2003).

Structure Organization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structure Organization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Designing Local e-Government: The Pillars of

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription

*Related content and download information correct at time of

This chapter aims to understand and analyze the background

1.1 THE BACKGROUND OF ORGANIZATIONAL

Organizational structures emerged during the Industrial

Illustration 1. Structure of Chapter One.

numbers of staff, which made the assignment of functions

(Hall, 1985). However, that analogy itself would be changed

achieve the interrelation and integration of the basic aspects

1.2 THE CONCEPT OF ORGANIZATIONAL

To be able to estimate the importance of organizational struc-

• An organizational structure is the distribution of people

• An organizational structure is a complex means of control

• An organizational structure is the way your work is

and integrated. Conventional structures are generally

• An organizational structure represents and describes the

From the statements above, it may be concluded that

1.3 COMPONENTS OF AN ORGANIZATIONAL

Organizational structures are related in terms of their inner

in order to react optimally, and these components do not

(1) According to the main components or basic parts of

(2) According to organizational units or centers that

(3) According to formal and informal relationships, which

(4) According to Mintzberg (1983), the structure of an

The characteristics of the role played by each of the

Illustration 2. Components of the Organizational Structure.

In order to distinguish these components within organiza-

• Strategic summit. The element that represents the role of

• Middle line. The element that represents the role of

management and the operational level. According to

• Operating core. The element that includes those jobs

• Techno structure. The element that represents the role of

• Support staff. The most diverse component, this consists

The components respond to the levels of execution of

1.4 CONTINGENCY FACTORS IN THE DESIGN OF

The design of organizational structures has evolved over time,

short and long terms.

Various theoretical approaches to organizational design

the purposes of this work, those that are considered by the

• Environment. The environment encompasses everything

that is alien to the organization, the nature of the

• Age/antiquity. The antiquity of a company is the period

• Size of the company. The size of the organization

• Technology. Technology includes all of those systems and

Similarly, if a technological system is sophisticated, it will

• Structure. Goals are an important part of an

– Simple strategy → simple structure.

– Elaborate strategy → more complex structure.

– Certain structural designs work best with different

— Passionate pursuit of innovation → organic.

— Passionate pursuit of cost control → mechanistic.

The influence of the factors on each of the organizational

1.5 CENTRALIZATION AND DECENTRALIZATION OF

While it is true that the issues of centralization and decen-

quently, offer one of the best ways to summarize the concept

Hage (1980) defines centralization as the level and variety of

implies, generally, that the largest source of decision-making

a) Geography or territorial. An organization that has all

b) Functional. This occurs when the function of an area

centralization or decentralization goes hand in hand

c) Decision making. Some type of centralization and

of administrative theory, this is the most detailed

– Simple strategy → simple structure.

– Elaborate strategy → more complex structure.

– Certain structural designs work best with different

— Passionate pursuit of innovation → organic.

— Passionate pursuit of cost control → mechanistic.

— Greater coordination through a central management

– Education. An appropriate method when people

– Participation. It is common for human beings to reject

– Negotiation. This is not a recommended method, since

(a) The money is invested in the control systems,

(b) The emphasis is on how things are done and not on

(c) The level of internal motivation is low.

(a) The emphasis is on who caused the problem, and

(d) The center is distracted by internal struggles; the