Comparing and Contrasting Different Organizational Structures - Coursework Example

? BUSINESS ORGANIZATION AND BEHAVIOUR By Location Introduction An organizational structure is a system used to define a chain of command in an organization by identifying each job, the function of the job and where the jobreports to.The aim of an organizational structure is todetermine how tasks and responsibilities are allocated and supervised (Ferna?ndez-Ballesteros 2003, p. 658). Moreover, organizational structures assist organizations or businesses to obtain their goals and future growth. On the other hand, organizational culture is aset of principles and norms that are usually shared by groups and people in an organization (Murley1996, p. 287). These norms and values determine the way the groups and people in organizationsinteract with each other within the organization and with other stakeholders outside the organization. Different organizations have vast cultures because they depend on the organization’s nature of business. Organizational culture influences a sense of identity to the employees,which in turn enhances commitment to something larger than the usual self. This paper will analyse a summative review of Siemens organizational structure and culture and compare it with organizations. Comparing and contrasting different organizational structures and culture with that of SiemensCompany Siemens is the world’s largest electrical engineering and electronics company whose headquarters is based in Germany and has branches that operates in 193 countries worldwide (Tung 2001, p. 183). Despite that the company has operated internationally, it focused on the German home market until the 1990s when it restructured. This restructuring process meant that Siemens had to change its old organizational structure and culture towards a new and ethical one (Phillips & Gully 2012, p. 481). The new organizational structure and culture is complex because Siemens is a diverse company situated in diverse locations in the world. Nevertheless, the company embraces the flow of internal and external communication where semiformal strategy is utilized. More so, the leaders exercise and maintain a semi-formal attitude that encourages employees to communicate especially when considered that the company is diversifying far and wide towards other foreign markets. Wal-Mart is a renowned retail outlet in the world,whosestructure and culture were set by its founder Sam Walton. The founder had clear objectives for the companythat had to be achieved by adhering to values and principles. Wal-Mart’s organizational structure is designed in a way that it enables it to have a wide range of control because it clearly identifies employees and authority roles. More so, Wal-Mart maintains a good working environment that encourages the employees to have trust, which in turn enhances good customer services (Solomon 2004, p. 5).The company also has a strong organizational culture that depicts through its mission statement, which aims at providing better quality products at lower prices than any other competitor provides. This culture affects the company's business because it determines the prosperity of the business. Apple is a world’s outstanding high technology company based in the U.S. The structure of the company could be referred to as nonexistent because the company has no clear set principles. This means that, Apple makes its decision depending on the work at hand. The granted freedom allowed employees to make decisions at different levels and the corporate office had a hard task keeping track of spending and purchasing, an aspect that once affected Apple’s profitability (Dubrin 2012, p. 287). The culture of Apple Inc. is of a rare case because the company has no chain of command that supervises the employees. This means that the employees are self-motivated; hence, pushing them to work hard because they do not have bosses to push them around. In comparison, the three organizational structures have a common similarity of creating a friendly working environment where any stakeholder can contribute to the company’s success. More so, each company has its own chain of command that ensures that the eventuality of the company’s objective is met. Nevertheless, the three companies depict vast differences in terms of structure and culture because different founders set up different organizational cultures. For instance, Wal-Mart organizational culture and structure emphasizes on price reduction, while Apple concentrates on employee freedom to execute ideas in order to improve output and help in innovation. On the other hand, Siemens advocates for open and fluent communicationthat runs through all the chains of command with an aim of creating a friendly working environment. The relationship between organizational structure and culture, and how it affects Siemens company business performance Ideally, organizational structures influence an organization's business by maintaining communication and coordination while culture motivates employees and other stakeholders. This means that organizational culture affects an organization’s business both in positiveand negative ways. To begin with, Siemens organizationalstructure and culture defines the boundary role of the organization by setting it apart from other organizations. The differentiation aspectsends aself-identity and fosters commitment to the members of the organization, especially the employees who turn out working better towards achieving the goals of the organization. More so, Siemens culture and structure lays a platform of appropriate working environment, which in turn shapes the employees behaviour and attitude (Solomon, 2004, p. 1). On another perspective, organizational structure and cultures contains regulations and policies thatmust be followed at all times; hence, fostering responsibility of each employee. Prior to enhancing responsibilities, organizational culture and structure has its negative impact in the sensethat Siemens is located in different parts of the world. This means that the workforcecould not agree with either the organization’s structure or culture due to their beliefs or lifestyle, which leads them to relentin sharingvalues amongst each other, or even leading to conflicts with the management. More so, the complexity of an organizational structure hinders the process of decision-making. Factors that affect individual behaviour at work People react differentlyto the environment surrounding them and understanding their behaviour is a tough task. Nevertheless, vast peoplebehave differently and different factors influence their behaviour. Primarily, personality is a major aspect that influences an individual’s work because it encompassesfeelings, beliefs, attitude,and lifestyle among others (Hellriegel& Slocum 2009, p. 2). This means that an individual’s personality like attitude or beliefs prohibits the individual to follow the set rules and regulations of the organization. Perception is another factor that determines an individual's behaviour at work because it deals with an individual’s acquired information or knowledge and since human minds ate attacked by vast informationoften, an individual'sbehaviour at work will subsequently change. Individual behaviour triggered by perception is extremely common because in most cases, inaccurate information concerning the organization could leak out; hence, affecting the behaviour of individuals. Attitude also determinesan individual’s behaviour at work because it catalyses an individual’s response to the various happenings. This means that attitude determines how an individual performs different tasks as well as dealing with things happening around. In most cases, positive attitudes yields positive output while negative attitude fosters delayed and minimal output that eventually result in conflicts. Comparing the effectiveness of different leadership styles in Siemens and other different organizations Siemens changed its leadership in 2007 due tobribery scandals that tarnished the company’s image and financial performance. Nevertheless, the new CEO named Peter Loscher chipped in with a different leadership strategy. This means that its CEO Peter Loscher, who is an extremely visionary leader, portrays Siemens leadership style. The CEO is visionary because since his appointment, he has strategized a lot in guiding the company into a better future. More so, the CEO has taken the role of guiding his followers to overcome the residue of the former crisis by motivating them to focus on the challenges ahead (Roland 2009, part 2). Prior to the visionary style, the company also exercises collaborative leadership style because the CEO is collaborating with the concerned stakeholders to establish programs that foster customer orientation as well as better leadership platforms. The leadership portrayed by Siemens is similar to Apple’s leadership in a few aspects because apple’s former CEO Steve Jobs was a visionary leader who producedthe products that befitted customers future tastes. More so, the late CEO motivated his employees to focus on the company’s future stability by laying out strategies early enough. However, Vodafone seems to have a different leadership style because it emphasizeson the importance of adhering to effective recognition and development of internal individuals who possessed the potential of becoming future leaders. How organizational theory underpins management practice Organizational theory is a concept that sets out rules that underpin management practices wherean individual’s interest cannot surpass the organization’svalues. There are three theories that underpin the practice of management. These theories are classical organizational theory, neoclassical theory and modern organization theory.All the three theories have the sameobjective of setting up fixed rules and duties throughout the organization. This means that the organization theorythrough set up principles underpins the practice of management because organizational theory gives shape to organizational change efforts (Holbeche 2012, chapter 5). Different management approaches used by Siemens and other organizations The Vodafone Company operates under the contingency theory with an aim of building and retaining a sustainable future by providing products and services that enhance positive environmental, social, and economic yields for its customers globally. Compared to Vodafone, Siemens uses the transformational theory in rebuilding the company’s image due to past scandal towards an outstanding technology company. More so, Siemens uses transformational management because in the past years it concentrated on the German market and is currently venturing into global markets (Siemens 2013, p. 1). Through this development, the company not only looks forward to making profits, but also to beat cultural differences in the outside market in order to sell its outstanding products to vast markets. Different leadership styles whose impact motivatesorganizationsduring periods of change Leadership have undergone numerous scholarly debate over the years, but current scholars define leadership as an influential relationship among leaders and their followers with an objective of bringing real change that reflect their mutual purpose. Leadership directly causes and effects organizational relationship and success because they determine culture, values and above all enhance employee motivation. There are specific leadership styles that affect motivation towards the organization and its employees, especially in times of change. Participative leadership is among the leadership styles that impacts motivation because a participative leader shares decision-making processes with its followers (Gitman& McDaniel 2009, p. 162). Consultative leadership is another leadership style that fosters motivation in an organization because a consultative leader solicits opinions from his followers before initiating a decision. Consensual leadership also affects motivation because such a leader encourages group discussions on issues at hand before making any decisions. These leaders give more authority to its followers because the followers’ opinions matter in the eventuality of decision-making. Comparison of different motivational theories and their application within the workplace The working environment possesses vast motivational theories thatneed utilization or else become of no use. These theories include Taylor’s theory, mayo’s theory and Maslow’s theory. To begin with, Maslow theory expressesthe individual’s motivation through a pyramid where he argues that an individual’s basic needarepsychological. This means that unless such an individual has hadnecessities like food, shelter, and otherhigher-level motivations are pointless (King &Lawley 2012, p. 283). The scholar further argued that this theory applied to work places where if employees did not have a comfortable working environment, higher-level motivation would yield no much fruit. On another note, Herzberg contributes by outlining his own motivational theory by arguing that certain conditions like hygiene factors were essential because though they did not necessarily motivate the employees it set up a satisfying environment. This is the case because, if an organization set up high standard hygiene in the working environment, it would not motivate the underpaid employee until a fair rate of pay is given; hence, certain conditions only satisfy rather than motivating (Purdy 2008, p. 27). On the other hand, Emmet chips in with his version of motivation theory by explaining that employees needed motivation towards participating and embracing the organization as part of them. This means that the only way of motivating employees is by allowing them to learn, do their best, enjoy work and above all be recognized and respected. The usefulness of Emmetmotivation theory for managers Emmet’s motivation theory would be the best in assisting managers in any given organization because its application has a larger impact. This theory emphasizes on employee recognition in the workplace where freedom and comfortable working environment is granted. More so, the theory advocates for collaboration, which comes from open communication (Howard &Callero 2006, p. 171). The theory assists managers in the fact that managers are able to interact with the employees in a freermanner to an extent that the manager is in a position to understand the employee and theirpsychological needs, whichare catered for in the end. Managing such employees becomes easier for managers because they deeply understand them and know the best motivation aspect that befits them. Moreover, the manager will find ease managing such employees because the fact that they interact and share ideas means that the employees possess a sense of belonging to the organization; hence, resulting in higher productivity. The nature of groups and group behaviour within Siemens A group is two or more people who interact with each other in a way that each person influences the other and viceversa. Several factors determine the behaviour of a group. The size of the group is one of the determiners because unlike smaller groups, larger groups need clear lines of communication and higher levels of formalization (Martin 2005, p. 273). This means that smaller organizations pay attention to their employees compared to larger groups that concentrate on tasks other than personal issues, hence, determining the group’sbehaviour.Siemens not only in its organizational structure and culture, but also in its global outlets embrace this concept where leaders pay attention to its employees through communication. More so, the purpose of the group determines its behaviour in a way that short-term purposes allocated differs from long-term purposes (Schendelen 2002, p. 167). In such cases, a group assigned to the long-term task behaves or interacts differently from groups with short-term tasks. Factors that may promote or inhibit the development of effective teamwork in Siemens Teamwork is a complex concept because it is associated with all sorts of conflicts, problems, and tensions that need instance intervention before they implicit negative outcomes. More so, the complexity of teamwork is depicted by the fact that different teams have different impacts were certain factors that make a team strong on one-perspective makes another team weaker (Blazey 2009, p. 168). Various factors promote or inhibit effective teamwork in organizations include diversity, communication, leadership and many others. Diversity comes in terms of culture, personality, beliefs, or background where an individual in the team adopts or learns new cultures. Diversity can promote innovation and creativity brought by individuals from different background. For instance, when Siemens Companyemploys an individual from Japan where technology practices is about high levels means that this individual will greatly affect the company’s teamwork because he will offer his expertise to its team (Dotlichet al 2009, p. 103). More so, the diversity concept could hinder teamwork progress because individuals from diverse cultures possess different beliefs. For instance, certain parts of the world do not accept women's leadership and deployinga female manager of such a country would hinder managerial processes for Siemens. Communication is another factor that affects teamwork performance because open communication is needed to enhance targeted, timelines, and responsibilities. Open communication becomes a major factor to consider because it enhances the team members to collaborate through openness and idea sharing, which strengthen teamwork. However, communication could also trigger conflicts in teams through different ways. In most cases misinterpreted or twisted information could lead to negative message delivery that turns out to create a negative perception; hence, leading to conflicts and poor performance from teamwork. Leadership also influences teamwork because effective leadership supports teamwork and vice versa. This is the case because; effective leadership lays a platform for open communication and collaboration that motivates and unites the team. The impact of technology on team functioning within Siemens Technology plays a vital role in determining how teams function because it eases most of the complex work. Siemens is a high technology company that means that most of teamworkis executed through technological operations. This is the case because advancement in technology fostered easier and efficient work. This is a fact because Siemens keeps shifting its work force from one section or the bothers due to the invention of efficient high technology machines that replaces the work force (Pinto 2004, p. 18). Therefore, the existence of high technology and innovation of more technological devices greatly affects Siemens teamwork thathas to be reshuffled to other departments occasionally. Conclusion Siemens is a global organization whose main objective is to maintain a promising environment for its employees. It achieves this objective by utilizing an appropriate organizational structure and a friendly and competitive culture by putting into practice effective use of its resources (Khosrowpour 2006, p. 371). Moreover, the company takes initiatives to overcome any sort of poor leadership and lack of motivation within theorganization. In spite that the company’s culture and structure is somehow complex, the company has tried to adapt to various environments, an aspect that has enabled them to penetrate to global markets throughout the world.However, different branches in different locations of the globe depict different performance, the company’s structure and culture of encouraging a flow of communication has created a better working environment to its employees and stakeholders. This openness has greatly contributed to the company’s adaptation to different diversities as well as fostered success. Bibliography Blazey, ML 2009, Insights to performance excellence, 2009-2010: an inside look at the 2009-2010 Baldrige Award criteria. Milwaukee, Asq Quality Press. Deiser, R 2009, Designing the Smart Organization How Breakthrough Corporate Learning Initiatives Drive Strategic Change and Innovation, Epub Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Dotlich, David L., Cairo, Peter C&Rhinesmith, Stephen H 2009, Leading in Times of Crisis Navigating Through Complexity, Diversity and Uncertainty to Save Your Business: Epub Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. Dubrin, A, J 2012, Essentials of management. Mason, Ohio, South-Western/Thomson Ferna?ndez-Ballesteros, R 2003, Encyclopedia of psychological assessment.London, SAGE Publications. Gitman, LJ &Mcdaniel, CD 2009, The future of business: the essentials. Mason, OH, South-WesternCenage Learning. Hellriegel, D & Slocum, JW 2009, Organizational behavior. Mason, OH, South-WesternCengage Learning. Holbeche, L 2012, understanding change.Routledge. Howard, JA &Callero, PL 2006, The Self-society dynamic. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Khosrowpour, M 2006, Lessons learned. Hershey, Pa, Idea Group Pub. King, D &Lawley, S 2012, organizationalbehaviour. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Learning. Martin, J 2005, Organizational behaviour and management. London [u.a.], Thomson Learning. Murley, P 2006, Gower handbook of customer service. Brookfield, Vt, Gower. Phillips, J & Gully, SM 2012, Organizational behavior: tools for success. Mason, OH, South-WesternCengage Learning. Pinto, J 2004, Automation unplugged: Pinto's perspectives, pointers & prognostications. Research Triangle Park, NC, ISA. Purdy, J 2008, Job Satisfaction Within a Nonprofit Organization: An Application of Hertzberg's Motivation-hygiene Theory. ProQue.st Schendelen, R. V 2002, Machiavelli in Brussels: the art of lobbying the EU. Amsterdam, Amsterdam Univ. Press. Siemens 2013, Siemens Management Consulting (SMC) is the top management strategy consultancy of Siemens. Siemens Global Website. Available from: http://www.siemens.com/jobs/en/graduates/siemens_management_consulting.htm [24 November 2013] Siemens annual report 2012, Employees – The source of our strength. Siemens.com. Available from: http://www.siemens.com/annual/12/en/company-report/employees-and-management-culture/ [24 November 2013]. Solomon, C 2004, Culture audits: supporting organizational success: organizational development.Alexandria, VA, ASTD Press. Tung, RL 2001, Learning from world class companies. London, Thomson Learning. Read More