How Organizational Structure Can Facilitate Speed, Collaboration, and Teamwork - Literature review Example

Organizational Structure Name Institution Tutor Date Introduction Selecting the most suitable organization structure to meet the objectives of a business can be intricate. This is because the structure of the firm affects the manner in which people are organized, how duties are coordinated, the nature of relationships that are developed in the work environment. In addition, the organizational structure also impacts the manner in management is undertaken. It is important to note that organizational structure is not a stand-alone entity or concept. For the organizational structure to assist in attaining the goals of the business, it has to support the process and functions inside the organization. This report seeks to examine how the organizational structure can facilitate speed, collaboration, and teamwork. In the discussion, the paper will also compare what takes place in traditional bureaucratic organizations. How Organizational Structure can Facilitate Speed The concept of organizational structure can be described as the formal configuration between groups and individuals with respect to the responsibilities, allocation of tasks and the authority within the organization (Sengupta and Mousumi, 2006). The speed at which a business conducts its operations is a source of competitive advantage. Consequently, the structure adopted by the business can facilitate or impend quick business operation. Nahm, Vonderembse and Koufteros (2003) conducted a study to examine the impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance. Time-based manufacturing practices involve the degree to which procedures and processes are changed to achieve a faster response to customer needs (Nahm, et al. 2003). The study involved the examination of various structural dimensions which include the level of horizontal integration, the number of layers in the hierarchy, level of communication, the locus of decision making and nature of formalization. The firms investigated by the study used the organic structure where face –to- face interactions are encouraged, operations are based on teamwork and innovation and learning are emphasized. Using the feedback of 224 manufacturing companies, the study adopted various instruments to estimate the various dimensions of the organizational structure. The findings of the study disclosed that the number of layers in the hierarchy, the level of horizontal integration and the nature of formalization have a direct, positive and substantial effect of the level of communication and locus of decision-making. The communication level and the locus of decision-making, in turn, have an affirmative, direct and significant impact on time-based manufacturing process (Nahm, et al. 2003). It can be stated that the study by Nahm, et al. (2003), illuminates the fact that the structure of an organization can bring a positive impact on the speed at which organizations perform their activities. As noted from the study, the manufacturing firms in the study adopted an organic structure as opposed to the mechanic (inorganic) which can be associated with the traditional bureaucratic arrangement. Mechanic paradigms are more appropriate in environments with routine technology and high levels of certainty. In addition, the inner structures adopt a functional, vertical, and bureaucratic arrangement. The effect of such frameworks is that process cannot be implemented speedily due to complexities that arise from long communication procedures and the locus of decision-making. By implementing the organic structure which encourages direct interaction between the workers and the management, innovation, and teamwork, it is possible to enhance faster working processes as validated by the research conducted by Nahm, et al. (2003). The choice of organizational structure can also expedite the communication process. Speed in terms of communication varies in different organizational structures. Quick communication is an essential attribute in flat organizations. In most cases, a key attribute in such structures is that the process of approval of information can be accelerated which allows the quick development of new services and products. In addition, reduced red tape ascertains that information is transferred to all employees at a faster rate (Burley, 2017). On, the other hand, in a bureaucratic framework, the process of communication is hindered by the power structure that exists in the management processes. This may ultimately affect the process innovation and service delivery. How Organizational Structure can Facilitate Collaboration Collaboration has often been perceived as an activity that entails team members working together. However, the concept of collaboration can best be defined in terms of a process that is controlled by a set of behaviors and norms that seek to increase the contribution individuals while leveraging the intelligence of each person. The process of collaboration should also enable an organization to learn how to advance interpersonal interactions in group settings while committing a shared objective (Luthans, 2010). In an environment that is truly collaborative, each individual has a voice. As a result, every person is able to contribute their ideas into the running of the organization (Kelly and Schaefer 2014). It is important to note that the type of organizational structure can support or deter collaboration. For instance, in mechanic structures, which are characterized by rigid and traditional bureaucracies with a rigid hierarchical communication and centralized power, enhancing collaboration can be difficult. This is because employees are not given a platform to voice their opinions freely because management takes the center stage in the communication process. On the other hand, organizational with organic structures have a flexible, a decentralized system of power and open communication. In such a system, collaboration can easily be implemented (Phillips and Gully, 2013). The organizational structure implemented by an organization can influence how it collaborates with other organizations. It is evident that with organizations do not conduct their business operations in a vacuum. In most cases, they have to cooperate with other firms to provide comprehensive products or services to the market (Knoben & Oerlemans, 2006), For instance, companies in the car manufacturing industry have to work together with spare part supplying companies. The type of organizational structure adopted by the two firms can influence collaboration between the two firms. For instance, if company A has adopted the mechanic framework that is characterized by a bureaucratic and formal structure, while company B has an organic structure with a non-bureaucratic and decentralized structure, challenges may emerge in terms of collaboration. This is because organization A only uses specified procedures and rules while organisation B uses an approach that promotes doing the right thing in order to ensure a win-win result. It is apparent that the variation in the organizational structure has an effect on successful collaboration between the two companies. Challenges such as misinterpretations of the other firm’s motives and actions are bound to occur. Also, the loss of trust in the capabilities of the other firm can arise. Knoben & Oerlemans (2006), therefore argue that the organizational structure is a critical ingredient in enhancing collaboration. Companies should, therefore, examine the structure of their business partners. How Organizational Structure Can Facilitate Teamwork A study conducted by Mette and Kerstin, (2016), to examine how staff experience teamwork challenges in a new organizational structure, discloses that the type of organizational structure implemented by an organization can promote or deter teamwork. The findings of the study disclosed that organizational structures that have a bureaucratic and formal structure tend to implement teamwork reluctantly. This is because the leadership of such organizations implement rules and regulations that affect team- oriented collaboration. On the other, when companies adopt open and centralized structures, teamwork can easily be executed. This is because such structures promote collaboration, open communication and they embrace the input of each team member as opposed to depending on the decisions of the top management (Mette and Kerstin, 2016). For instance, when Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, the organization had adopted a bureaucratic system. He changed the structure and the culture of the company. Initially, the business was organized on functional instead of product lines, where the top management was expected to have a specialist as well as general management skills. Most of the senior managers were based on the main campus making the organization seem like a giant organization. Jobs idea was to transform this system by making the company to look- like a start- up where employees are organized into small project teams that work to develop new product portfolios. It can be argued that adopting a conventional form of organisational structure has promoted Apples’ success in the market. Communication is a vital element when working in teams. It also essential to take note that the type of organizational structure implemented by an organization can influence communication in groups. Organizations sometimes adopt a structure that incorporates teamwork. However, the teams do not take charge of their communication. This type of structure can eventually hinder the efficient operations of the teams. According to Miles and Kanazawa (2008), the use of a simple tablework structure and the process can enable all teams across the company to self-facilitate their dialogues. The approach entails direct communication among team members without using team managers or intermediaries. The method promotes dialogue throughout the organizational and therefore promoting teamwork. The use of the tablework structure indicates that the organizational structure facilitates teamwork by promoting easy communication. Conclusion The discussion underscores the fact that the organizational structure can facilitate speed, collaboration, and teamwork. The report highlights that speed in terms of communication and business processes in areas such as manufacturing can be expedited if an organization embraces organic structures. In addition, collaboration and teamwork can best be attained if firms embrace structures that are open to communication and have a decentralized system of power. In concussion, it imperative for organizations to adopt implement organizational structures that can effectively meet their objectives. References Burley, K, (2017). The Impact of Flat Organizational Structure on Communication. Chron. Luthans, F, (2010). Organizational behavior – an evidence based approach. Irwin. Kelly, K and Schaefer, K, (2014). Creating a Collaborative Organizational Culture. UNC. Miles, R and Kanazawa, T, (2008). BIG Ideas to BIG Results: Remake and Recharge Your Company, Fast. FT Press. Mette S and Kerstin, N, (2016). "How staff experience teamwork challenges in a new organizational structure", Team Performance Management, 22, 7/8, pp.415-427 Nahm, Vonderembse and Koufteros, (2003). The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance. Journal of Operations Management 21 (2003) 281–306. Phillips, J and Gully, S, (2013). Organizational Behavior: Tools for Success. Cengage Learning. Sengupta, N and Mousumi, B, (2006). Managing Change in Organizations. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G, (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89. Read More