Effects of Organizational Structure on Communication and Management - Research Paper Example

An Analysis of How Communication is affected via Organizational Structure Without question, one of the most important determinants of workplace communication and the free flow of ideas has to do with the means by which organizational structure is fabricated and followed. As both communication and managerial professionals will be quick to relate, the means by which organization is established is the single most important determinant in defining the means by which the organization itself will ultimately grow, mature, and either advance or regress (Crawford 2013). Though organizational structure is important within each and every business and/or firm that is represented within the current system, the purpose of this brief analysis will focus upon the means by which organizational structure itself is of primal importance to the luxury apparel market. As a means of performing such an analysis, the level to which organizational structure plays a dominant and commanding role in the way in which communication takes place within the given industries in question will mean that the reader will have a more full and complete understanding of the topic as well as the means by which communication strategies themselves can be employed to increase the overall effectiveness of the firm (Wulf 2012). For purposes of clarity, it should be understood that the proceeding analysis attempts to look objectively at a very broad industry which cannot in and of itself be successfully described in terms of generalities. However, understanding this constraint, this author has attempted to engender the largest similarities between the industry and report it as a very stereotypical model that in and of itself most likely does not exist (Groysberg 2012). However, for purposes of clarity, it has been related in such manner. One of the unique factors that governs the way in which luxury apparel usually seeks to organize itself is that it is much more simply organized than more complex industries. Speaking from a retail perspective the organizational chart is both fairly simple and fairly standard. Firstly, there is the store employee/floor person. This employee necessarily reports to a store manager or supervisor who in turn is responsible to a regional or division director. From there the models tend to deviate a bit before ultimately reaching a CEO or board of directors. Such an organizational model is highly linear as there is a regimented chain of command that flows directly from the lowest line employee to the highest board of director member or CEO in the company. The obvious benefit to such a regimented and linear chain of organization is that implementation of duties and tasks flows down directly from leadership without the ability to become lost or muddled too deeply in a complex organizational command. This generally provides for a clear enunciation of tasks and clear direction for the future. A further benefit that such an organizational structure has is that it has at least the potential to maximize the way in which employee feedback into the system can help to generate a higher level of sales and thereby a more profitable company. In order for such a model to work, subsequent layers much necessarily be attuned to the inputs that the line employees at the store level have to offer due to the fact that these individuals are the ones that can provide corporate with the best understanding of the particular habits and tastes of consumers. If alternate means were used to tap into this knowledge base, it is likely that a massive amount of money would be necessary to accomplish such a level of market research as is available to the firm in the form of the very employees that they retain. In such a way, if the firm chooses to avail itself of this gold mine of pertinent marketing and consumer behavior analysis, it can find itself in a much more competitive environment than one of its competitors that ignores such a data resource (Gibbs 2012). In a situation in which information readily flows from store employee to the upper echelons of regional or corporate management, key consumer tastes and trends, even down to the regional level, can be pinpointed and actionable; thereby yielding a much higher level of profitability for the store and a much more efficient operation of the organizational and communication process within the company. However, the primary threat that such an organizational structure as has been defined has upon the communication process within the organization is that if any one level of the communication process breaks down then the information is no longer being relayed from the top of the corporate structure to the line employee or from the line employee to the CEO (Koschmann et al 2012). In this way, the efficiency of the management has an even more prescient bearing on the level to which total organizational success will be achieved (Bisel 2012). Of course this is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that even if one or two of the management positions fail to report key information and trends to the upper levels, the other store managers, or regional supervisors will be able to at least bring some actionable information themselves. In effect, the situation that has thus far been described is evidence of the dual and intertwined nature that the communication process and the organizational structure have upon one another. In many ways one can easily view these two as a type of symbiotic relationship where one necessarily assists the other in helping to shape the corporation into a more streamlined and efficient entity. As has been noted, the key constraints that the type of organizational chart which has been presented also have the potential to transform the entity into an even more successful one. In this way, the differential between success and failure within the confines of organizational structure and the precipitating communication which it fosters is made plainly obvious to the researcher. References Bisel, R. S., Messersmith, A. S., & Kelley, K. M. (2012). Supervisor-Subordinate Communication: Hierarchical Mum Effect Meets Organizational Learning. Journal Of Business Communication, 49(2), 128-147. doi:10.1177/0021943612436972 CRAWFORD, E. R., & LEPINE, J. A. (2013). A CONFIGURAL THEORY OF TEAM PROCESSES: ACCOUNTING FOR THE STRUCTURE OF TASKWORK AND TEAMWORK. Academy Of Management Review, 38(1), 32-48. doi:10.5465/amr.2011.0206 Gibbs, T., Heywood, S., Weiss, L., & Jost, G. (2012). Organizing for an emerging world. Mckinsey Quarterly, (3), 81-91. Groysberg, B., & Slind, M. (2012). Leadership Is a Conversation. Harvard Business Review, 90(6), 76-84. Koschmann, M. A., Kuhn, T. R., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2012). A Communicative Framework of Value in Cross-Sector Partnerships. Academy Of Management Review, 37(3), 332-354. Wulf, J. (2012). The Flattened Firm: NOT AS ADVERTISED. California Management Review, 55(1), 5-23. Read More