JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

OF

AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF MINING, MATERIALS AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

MINING AND MINERAL PROCESSING ENGINEERING

EMM 2527: SELECTED TOPICS IN EXTRACTIVE METALLURGY.

PRINCIPLES MANAGEMENT PERSONAL PAPER

ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN.

PERSONAL PAPER.

JACKLINE CHEBET ENM231-0662/2016

Mr. Philemon

November 2022
Tables of content

Tables of content..............................................................................................................................1

Approach to Organizational Design................................................................................................2

1.1 The functional Approach..................................................................................................2

1.2 Divisional Approach.........................................................................................................3

1.3 Matrix Approach...............................................................................................................4

1.4 Team Approach.................................................................................................................5

1.5 Network Approach............................................................................................................7

1.6 Simple, Flat Approach......................................................................................................7

1.7 The Classical Approach:...................................................................................................7

1.8 The Task Technology........................................................................................................8

References..................................................................................................................................10

1
 Approach to Organizational Design

Organizational design is the decision making process by which managers choose an

organizational structure appropriate to the strategy for the organization and the environment in

which members of the organization carry out that strategy(Jackson, 2007).

Organizational design thus has managers looking in two directions simultaneously: inside their

organization and outside their organization. Knowledge about organizational design has evolved

over the past century. Initially, organizational design processes were concentrated on the internal

workings of an organization. The four building blocks of organizational design – division of

labor, departmentalization, hierarchy, and coordination – all have rich traditions in the history of

management practice(Cliffnotes, 2022). This should not be surprising. In the era that we call the

Industrial Revolution, it was no small task just to arrange large-scale organizations that had no

precedents.

Gradually, the ‘outside world’ part of the organizational design equation has been given more

and more managerial attention. In this article, we will take you on a brief tour of the historical

development of organizational design. Keep two things in mind here. First, because both

strategies and environments change over time, organizational design is an ongoing process.

Second, changes in structure usually involve trial and error(Chetna A, 2020).

1.1 The functional Approach

 It groups positions into work units based on similar activities, skills, expertise, and resources .

Production, marketing, finance, and human resources are common groupings within a functional

structure(Chetna A, 2020).

As the simplest approach, a functional structure features well‐defined channels of

communication and authority/responsibility relationships. Not only can this structure improve

2
 productivity by minimizing duplication of personnel and equipment, but it also makes employees

comfortable and simplifies training as well (Chetna A, 2020).

But the functional structure has many downsides that may make it inappropriate for some

organizations. Here are a few examples:

The functional structure can result in narrowed perspectives because of the separateness of

different department work groups. Managers may have a hard time relating to marketing, for

example, which is often in an entirely different grouping. As a result, anticipating or reacting to

changing consumer needs may be difficult. In addition, reduced cooperation and communication

may occur.

Decisions and communication are slow to take place because of the many layers of hierarchy.

Authority is more centralized.

The functional structure gives managers experience in only one field—their own. Managers do

not have the opportunity to see how all the firm's departments work together and understand their

interrelationships and interdependence (Chetna A, 2020).. In the long run, this specialization

results in executives with narrow backgrounds and little training handling top management

duties.

1.2 Divisional Approach

Managers in large companies may have difficulty keeping track of all their company's products

and activities, specialized departments may develop. These departments are divided according to

their organizational outputs(Cliffnotes, 2022). Examples include departments created to

distinguish among production, customer service, and geographical categories. This grouping of

departments is called divisional structure . These departments allow managers to better focus

3
 their resources and results. Divisional structure also makes performance easier to

monitor(Schneeweiβ, 1995). This approach is flexible and responsive to change.

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1 shows a division organisation

structure(Bernus, 2003)

Divisional approach does have its drawbacks. Because managers are so specialized, they may

waste time duplicating each other's activities and resources. In addition, competition among

divisions may develop due to limited resources.

1.3 Matrix Approach

The matrix approach combines functional specialization with the focus of divisional structure.

This structure uses permanent cross‐functional teams to integrate functional expertise with a

divisional focus(Dignum, 2013).

4
 Employees in a matrix structure belong to at least two formal groups at the same time—a

functional group and a product, program, or project team. They also report to two bosses—one

within the functional group and the other within the team.

This structure not only increases employee motivation, but it also allows technical and general

management training across functional areas as well. Potential advantages include

Better cooperation and problem solving.

 Increased flexibility.

 Better customer service.

 Better performance accountability.

 Improved strategic management.

Predictably, the matrix structure also has potential disadvantages. Here are a few of this

structure's drawbacks:

 The two‐boss system is susceptible to power struggles, as functional supervisors and team

leaders vie with one another to exercise authority.

 Members of the matrix may suffer task confusion when taking orders from more than one boss.

 Teams may develop strong team loyalties that cause a loss of focus on larger organization goals.

 Adding the team leaders, a crucial component, to a matrix structure can result in increased costs.

1.4 Team Approach

Team structure organizes separate functions into a group based on one overall objective .

These cross‐functional teams are composed of members from different departments who work

together as needed to solve problems and explore opportunities. The intent is to break down

functional barriers among departments and create a more effective relationship for solving

ongoing problems(Myers, 2009).

5
 Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..2 shows a team organization

structure(Doherty et al., 2010)

The team structure has many potential advantages, including the following:

 Intradepartmental barriers break down.

 Decision‐making and response times speed up.

 Employees are motivated.

 Levels of managers are eliminated.

 Administrative costs are lowered.

The disadvantages include:

 Conflicting loyalties among team members.

 Time‐management issues.

 Increased time spent in meetings.

 Managers must be aware that how well team members work together often depends on the

quality of interpersonal relations, group dynamics, and their team management abilities.

6
1.5 Network Approach

The network approach relies on other organizations to perform critical functions on a contractual

basis . Managers can contract out specific work to specialists. This approach provides flexibility

and reduces overhead because the size of staff and operations can be reduced. On the other hand,

the network structure may result in unpredictability of supply and lack of control because

managers are relying on contractual workers to perform important work.

1.6 Simple, Flat Approach

A simple approach tends to be flat, meaning it doesn't have a lot of managers. This approach

consists of a lot of employees and a single boss or perhaps one level of managers (Ashton,

2004). This works well for small businesses that operate in one location and depend on the

owner for their direction. The business owner can be very hands-on with this approach because

he has direct ace

1.7 The Classical Approach:

Early managers and management writers sought the ‘one best way’ – a set of principles for

creating an organizational structure that would work well in all situations. Max Weber, Frederick

Taylor, and Henri Fayol were major contributors to the so called classical approach to

organizational design(Mazzoli, 2014). They believed that the most efficient and effective

organizations had a hierarchical structure in which members of the organization were guided in

their actions by a sense of duty to the organization and by a set of rational rules and regulations.

When fully developed, according to Weber, such organizations were characterized by

specialization of tasks, appointment by merit, provision if career opportunities for members,

routinization of activities and a rational, impersonal organizational climate(Myers, 2009).

7
 Bureaucracy was praise by some experts for its establishment of rules for decision making, its

clear chain of command, and its promotion of people on the basis of ability and experience rather

than favoritism or whim. The bureaucracy’s clear specification of authority and responsibility is

also admired, which was believed that it made easier to evaluate and reward

performance(Dignum, 2013). This approach to organizational design had precedent in

government civil services. The term bureaucracy has not always carried the modern negative

connotation – a framework for slow, inefficient, unimaginative organizational activity.

1.8 The Task Technology

A different set of variables internal to the organization are prominent in the task technology

approach to organizational design that emerged in the 1960s. Task technology refers to the

different kinds of production technology involved in making different kinds of products.

Classical studies conducted in the mid 1960s by Joan Woodward and her colleagues found that

an organization’s task technology affected both its structure and its structure and its success.

Woodward’s team divided about 100 British manufacturing forms into three groups according to

their respective task technologies: (1) Unit and small batch production, (2) large batch and mass

production and (3) process production.

Unit production refers to the production of individual items tailored to a customer’s

specifications – custom made clothes, for example. The technology used in unit production is the

least complex because the items are produced largely by individual craftspeople. Small batch

production refers to products made in small quantities in separate stages, such as machine parts

that are later assembled. Large batch and mass production refer to the manufacture of large

quantities of products, sometimes on an assembly line (such as computer chips). Process

production refers to the production of materials that are sold by weight or volume, such as

8
chemicals or drugs. These materials are usually produced with highly complex equipment that

operates in a continuous flow.

Second, the span of management for first level managers increase as we move from unit to mass

production, but deceases when we move from mass to process production. Because lower level

employees in both unit and process production firms usually do highly skilled work, they tend to

form small work groups, making a narrow span inevitable. In contrast, a large number of

assembly-line workers who perform similar tasks can be supervised by one manager.

Third, as a firm’s technological complexity increase, its clerical and administrative staffs become

larger because managers need help with paperwork and non-production related work so they can

concentrate on specialized tasks. Also, complex equipment requires more maintenance and

scheduling, both of which generate additional paperwork.

9
 References

Ashton, D. N. (2004). The impact of organisational structure and practices on learning in the workplace.

International Journal of Training and Development, 8(1), 43–53.

Bernus, P. (2003). Organisational design. In Handbook on enterprise architecture (pp. 575–594). Springer.

Chetna A. (2020). Approaches to Management: Classical, Modern, Scientific and System Approach.

https://www.businessmanagementideas.com/management/approaches-to-management/approaches-

to-management-classical-modern-scientific-and-system-approach/19527

Cliffnotes. (2022). Five Approaches to Organizational Design.

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/principles-of-management/organizational-design-and-

structure/five-approaches-to-organizational-design

Dignum, V. (2013). Assessing organisational design. In Simulating Social Complexity (pp. 541–562). Springer.

Doherty, N. F., Champion, D., & Wang, L. (2010). An holistic approach to understanding the changing nature

of organisational structure. Information Technology & People.

Jackson, M. C. (2007). Systems approaches to management. Springer Science & Business Media.

Mazzoli, M. (2014). Governance, organisational design, financial structure and investments in a co-operative

firm. In Research Handbook on Sustainable Co-operative Enterprise. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Myers, P. S. (2009). Knowledge management and organisational design. Routledge.

Schneeweiβ, C. (1995). Hierarchical structures in organisations: A conceptual framework. European Journal of

Operational Research, 86(1), 4–31.

10