Paradoxical Twins Case Analysis
MOR 461
The Case of the Paradoxical Twins: Case Analysis
1. At the end of Part I, how would you describe the organization design of both Omega and Acme? What factors led you to this conclusion?
By the end of Part I, it is clear that Acme is a more mechanistic organization focusing on efficiency and profits, while Omega aligns itself with an organic organization structure focusing on cooperation, collaboration, and integration.
Acme is mechanistic with a clear vertical structure; this conclusion is reached when looking at various factors. Factors include the degree of specialization, formalization, and centralization. Mechanistic structures are highly specialized, highly formalized, and centralized similar to Acme. Specialization can be seen through narrow job descriptions with clear responsibilities, while high formalization can be seen through the well-defined organizational charts and “tight ship” management style. The high level of both specialization and formalization indicate a centralized environment, which is verified in Part I by the fact that managers wish they had greater decision-making influence (“more latitude”). Furthermore, the structure at Acme has an end goal of efficiency and cost control, similar to most mechanistic organizations.
Omega, on the other hand, has an organic structural design with an emphasis on collaboration, cooperation, and employee satisfaction across and among departments. This emphasis shows Omega’s focus on effectiveness, especially in the internal process, which combined with management’s team-based emphasis on making everyone feel as if they are part of the team and taking the time to listen to suggestions (a little too much time occasionally) furthers the conclusion that the company is organic. Furthermore, CEO Rawls does not believe in organization charts or written memos indicating low formalization and a decentralized decision-making process (without organization charts, authority is less defined).
The Case of the Paradoxical Twins: Case Analysis
1. At the end of Part I, how would you describe the organization design of both Omega and Acme? What factors led you to this conclusion?
By the end of Part I, it is clear that Acme is a more mechanistic organization focusing on efficiency and profits, while Omega aligns itself with an organic organization structure focusing on cooperation, collaboration, and integration.
Acme is mechanistic with a clear vertical structure; this conclusion is reached when looking at various factors. Factors include the degree of specialization, formalization, and centralization. Mechanistic structures are highly specialized, highly formalized, and centralized similar to Acme. Specialization can be seen through narrow job descriptions with clear responsibilities, while high formalization can be seen through the well-defined organizational charts and “tight ship” management style. The high level of both specialization and formalization indicate a centralized environment, which is verified in Part I by the fact that managers wish they had greater decision-making influence (“more latitude”). Furthermore, the structure at Acme has an end goal of efficiency and cost control, similar to most mechanistic organizations.
Omega, on the other hand, has an organic structural design with an emphasis on collaboration, cooperation, and employee satisfaction across and among departments. This emphasis shows Omega’s focus on effectiveness, especially in the internal process, which combined with management’s team-based emphasis on making everyone feel as if they are part of the team and taking the time to listen to suggestions (a little too much time occasionally) furthers the conclusion that the company is organic. Furthermore, CEO Rawls does not believe in organization charts or written memos indicating low formalization and a decentralized decision-making process (without organization charts, authority is less defined).