STRUCTURE AND FORM

STRUCTURE AND FORM Order Description RESPOND TO THE TWO CLASSMATES SEPARATELY, DEAN AND SIMON, WITH MINIMUM OF 200 WORDS EACH AND 3 REFERENCES EACH. (DO NOT USE UK OR BRITISH REFERENCES, ONLY USE UNITED STATES REFEENCES). I WILL PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF HOW TO RESPOND TO THEM. THE QUESTION THAT THE CLASSMATES ARE ANSWERING IS: Engage the idea that form (structure) follows function (strategy or purpose). How does this affect established organizations that want to change strategy? How does organizational structure affect the behavior of the people workin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the organization? In your answer, differentiate among various structures by considerin" rel="nofollow">ing, for example, the behaviors one might see in" rel="nofollow">in a highly centralized structured organization versus a decentralized structure. Also, take advantage of the organizational metaphors used by Morgan (2006). DEAN’S ORIGINAL ANSWER: “Each form of structure…represents a tool that can help managers make an organization more effective, dependin" rel="nofollow">ing on the demands of its situation.” (Daft, 2016, p. 126) The concept that form follows function when considerin" rel="nofollow">ing organization design is one which recognizes that the type of organization is often predicated upon determin" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing where an organization is headin" rel="nofollow">ing and how it plans to get there. What may work well at one organization may be disastrous for another if its design is not fit for purpose. “Organizations are rarely established as ends in" rel="nofollow">in themselves. They are in" rel="nofollow">instruments created to achieve other ends.” (Gareth, 2014, p. 15) Organizations generally fit in" rel="nofollow">into classifications somewhere between the opposin" rel="nofollow">ing concepts of mechanistic and organic design. (Daft, 2016) Mechanistic organizations are characterized by strong centralization, clear and defin" rel="nofollow">ined processes and procedures, and a well-defin" rel="nofollow">ined management peckin" rel="nofollow">ing order. (Daft, 2016) Organic organizations tend to be more decentralized with less rigidity in" rel="nofollow">in process and procedures and tend to be more horizontal in" rel="nofollow">in terms of leadership concepts avoidin" rel="nofollow">ing clear models of the chain" rel="nofollow">ins of command. (Daft, 2016) Leaders who are considerin" rel="nofollow">ing changes in" rel="nofollow">in strategy must also consider where on this wide spectrum of design ideas their organization fits from a purpose and functional direction aspect. Generally speakin" rel="nofollow">ing, larger organizations with clearly defin" rel="nofollow">ined processes and requirements for efficient delivery of standardized product are goin" rel="nofollow">ing to function better under a more mechanistic design. Smaller companies focused on creativity and nimble origin" rel="nofollow">ination of ideas with a focus on providin" rel="nofollow">ing new and improved differentiated products or services will likely fin" rel="nofollow">ind that organic design if more effective. (Daft, 2016) It is important that leadership understand the culture and direction of their organization when establishin" rel="nofollow">ing, main" rel="nofollow">intain" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing, or changin" rel="nofollow">ing the organizational strategy. A change in" rel="nofollow">in strategy may dictate a change in" rel="nofollow">in the design and structure of the organization in" rel="nofollow">in order to meet that strategy. References: Daft, R. L. (2016). Organization theory & design. New York: Cengage Learnin" rel="nofollow">ing. Gareth, M. (2014). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. EXAMPLE OF HOW TO RESPOND TO DEAN: Hi Dean, Thank you for your helpful post. My in" rel="nofollow">interest was piqued by the idea that smaller organizations with an appetite for flexibility and creativity will generally fin" rel="nofollow">ind the organic design more effective, and larger established organizations will tend toward mechanistic design. “In a mechanistic design the structure is centralized, whereas an organic design uses decentralized decision makin" rel="nofollow">ing” (Daft, 2016, p. 30). I serve with an established, large and growin" rel="nofollow">ing multicultural, multi-denomin" rel="nofollow">inational, mission organization (with min" rel="nofollow">inistry activity in" rel="nofollow">in more than 100 countries) that seeks to contin" rel="nofollow">inually embrace a decentralized decision makin" rel="nofollow">ing paradigm. This takes effort, because, as form follows function, the mechanization of large organizations is helpful pragmatism. Tracin" rel="nofollow">ing history, Morgan notes that the mechanistic model has in" rel="nofollow">increased “productivity manifold” (2006, p. 24). One way for organizations to remain" rel="nofollow">in organic over the long haul is through their expressed core values. Core values help organizations remain" rel="nofollow">in mission true, and are most beneficial when they are carefully articulated, learned and appropriated, and regularly reviewed by all members. One of our core values is “Innovation and Flexibility” – it is designed to resist any trend toward mechanization as global growth leads in" rel="nofollow">inevitably to in" rel="nofollow">increased diversity (www.pioneers.org). In this way, as we seek to adjust strategy from time to time, we can in" rel="nofollow">invoke our mission-wide commitment to flexibility. Argyris discusses in" rel="nofollow">in some detail the role emotions play when organizational change is in" rel="nofollow">in the air. “Emotions or feelin" rel="nofollow">ings play an important part in" rel="nofollow">in precipitatin" rel="nofollow">ing change” (Argyris, 1997, p. 353). By embeddin" rel="nofollow">ing terms like flexibility, or similar, in" rel="nofollow">into a set of organizational values, and ensurin" rel="nofollow">ing members “own” those values when they join" rel="nofollow">in the organization, and periodically review them throughout their tenure with the organization, a resistance to change may be overcome. Blessin" rel="nofollow">ings, Simon References Argyris, C. 1997. Initiatin" rel="nofollow">ing Change that Perseveres. (Initiatin" rel="nofollow">ing Change: Theory and Practice). American Behavioral Scientist 40, no. 3 (Jan): 299-310. Daft, R. L. (2016). Organization Theory & Design. 12th Edition. South-Western College Publishin" rel="nofollow">ing. Cengage Learnin" rel="nofollow">ing. Boston, MA. Morgan, Gareth. (2006). Images of Organizations. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA. Pioneers (www.pioneers.org) SIMON’S ANSWER TO QUESTION: Morgan (2006) contends there are no absolute right or wrong organizational management theories, “sin" rel="nofollow">ince every theory illumin" rel="nofollow">inates and hides” (p. 8) and “a way of seein" rel="nofollow">ing is a way of not seein" rel="nofollow">ing” (p. 67). Organizations are deliberately structured entities designed to achieve certain" rel="nofollow">in goals. Strategy gives rise to structure. In a world of dynamic change, the accomplishment of proposed organizational goals presumes an ability to adapt modes of reasonin" rel="nofollow">ing and practice (Argyris, 1997). Established organizations are likely to resist change strategy because of the discrepancy between theory and practice. Change is especially difficult when structures have been built around long- established practices (Argyris, 1997). Morgan (2006) develops the concept of understandin" rel="nofollow">ing organizational life through metaphors that pervade ways of viewin" rel="nofollow">ing the world. One metaphor is that of organizations designed and operated as if they were machin" rel="nofollow">ines; where mechanistic thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing resists fresh ideas and new approaches. Directives from senior managers in" rel="nofollow">in this highly centralized structural model requires systems of authority, disciplin" rel="nofollow">ine and subordin" rel="nofollow">ination which “tend to limit rather than mobilize human capacities” (Morgan, p. 30). Due to the close lin" rel="nofollow">ink between in" rel="nofollow">individual and organizational patterns of action, there is little likelihood of changin" rel="nofollow">ing one without changin" rel="nofollow">ing the other. Initiatin" rel="nofollow">ing change requires a willin" rel="nofollow">ingness by in" rel="nofollow">individuals to risk embarrassment, encourage in" rel="nofollow">inquiry, and embrace new ideas in" rel="nofollow">in organizations steeped in" rel="nofollow">in traditional ways of operatin" rel="nofollow">ing, sin" rel="nofollow">ince those very traditions are a form of protection from embarrassment (Argyris, 1997). Daft (2016) suggests various forms of structure represent tools that may be used to make an organization more effective, notin" rel="nofollow">ing that organizations are comprised of people who collaborate to achieve common goals. In contrast to the machin" rel="nofollow">ine metaphor, the image of organizations as organisms illumin" rel="nofollow">inates a decentralized system of authority in" rel="nofollow">in which “standardization and in" rel="nofollow">integration are achieved through professional train" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing and key operatin" rel="nofollow">ing norms” (Morgan, p. 50). In this construct, change may be more readily achievable because the culture gives attention to the “human side of organization” (Morgan, p. 35). References Argyris, C. 1997. Initiatin" rel="nofollow">ing Change that Perseveres. (Initiatin" rel="nofollow">ing Change: Theory and Practice). American Behavioral Scientist 40, no. 3 (Jan): 299-310. Daft, R. L. (2016). Organization Theory & Design. 12th Edition. South-Western College Publishin" rel="nofollow">ing. Cengage Learnin" rel="nofollow">ing. Boston, MA. Morgan, Gareth. (2006). Images of Organizations. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.