Org Structure
Organizational structures
There are many different opinions and definitions on organizational structure.
Structure in one sense is the arrangement of duties used for the work to be done. This is best represented by the organization.
What determines organizational structure? Classics in the field of organization theory represent many different schools. Some believe that certain factor, such as size, environment, or technology, determine organizational structure. They argue that these factors impose economic or other constrains on organizations that force them to choose certain structure over others. Thompson [31 p.51] said that structure "is the internal differentiation and patterning of relationships." He referred to structure as the means by which the organization sets limits and boundaries for efficient performance by its members, by delimiting responsibilities, control over resources, and other matters.
Katz and Kahn [24 p.21] say that "structure is to be found in an interrelated set of events which return to complete and renew a cycle of activities." Jackson and Morgan use a modified definition originally formulated by Child [7]. They defined structure "as the relatively enduring allocation of work roles and administrative mechanisms that creates a pattern of interrelated work activities and allows the organization to conduct, coordinate, and control its work activities".
As far as this paper does not concern the definition of organizational structure, dimensions of structure are much more important issues. The usual approach to structural dimensions is to assume that each dimension of structure can vary independently. Perhaps the principal disadvantage is that we have many dimensions of structure to deal with rather than a simple typology. Hall studied bureaucracy and he showed that an organization can be very bureaucratic in one characteristic and much less bureaucratic in another characteristic. Jackson and Morgan compared three studies of the
There are many different opinions and definitions on organizational structure.
Structure in one sense is the arrangement of duties used for the work to be done. This is best represented by the organization.
What determines organizational structure? Classics in the field of organization theory represent many different schools. Some believe that certain factor, such as size, environment, or technology, determine organizational structure. They argue that these factors impose economic or other constrains on organizations that force them to choose certain structure over others. Thompson [31 p.51] said that structure "is the internal differentiation and patterning of relationships." He referred to structure as the means by which the organization sets limits and boundaries for efficient performance by its members, by delimiting responsibilities, control over resources, and other matters.
Katz and Kahn [24 p.21] say that "structure is to be found in an interrelated set of events which return to complete and renew a cycle of activities." Jackson and Morgan use a modified definition originally formulated by Child [7]. They defined structure "as the relatively enduring allocation of work roles and administrative mechanisms that creates a pattern of interrelated work activities and allows the organization to conduct, coordinate, and control its work activities".
As far as this paper does not concern the definition of organizational structure, dimensions of structure are much more important issues. The usual approach to structural dimensions is to assume that each dimension of structure can vary independently. Perhaps the principal disadvantage is that we have many dimensions of structure to deal with rather than a simple typology. Hall studied bureaucracy and he showed that an organization can be very bureaucratic in one characteristic and much less bureaucratic in another characteristic. Jackson and Morgan compared three studies of the
References: (Rothstein, 2006; Katz, McDuffie And Frits, 2002), (Katz, Kochan and Keefe, 1987; MacDuffie and Pil, 1994), (Katz, Kochan and Keefe, 1987), (e.g. Kostova and Roth, 2002) Corporate Culture (March and Simon, 1958; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Drucker, 1964; Crozier, 1964) (Hofstede, 1985; Lebas and Weigenstein, 1986) (Pettigrew, 1979; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Pfeffer, 1981) (Ashenfelter and Johnson, 1969) (Thompson and Wildavsky, 1986; Martin and Siehl, 1983) (Kanungo and Wright, 1983)