Has Organisational Culture Now Replaced Organisational Structure - Coursework Example

Has Organisational Culture Now Replaced Organisational Structure as the Dominant Method of Management Control in the Organisation? Instructor’s Name Subject / Course Date Table of Contents I. Introduction ……………………………………………………………… 3 II. Definition of Words …………………………………………………….. 4 III. The Past and Current Organizational Structure and Culture ...……… 5 IV. Discussion ……………………………………………………………….. 8 V. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………. 9 References ………………………………………………………………………. 11 - 13 Introduction Globalization is one of the most common factors that significantly caused the changes with the existing methods of management control that is being applied with the different organizations today. In line with these changes includes the belief that formal structural controls such as ‘bureaucracy’ is becoming less effective and relevant in today’s contemporary workplace in exchange with a ‘cultural’ way of management control. The dominance of the US experience in management theory is very evident considering that most of the well-known theorists behind the study of bureaucratic organizations such as Max Weber, Frederick W. Taylor and Herbert Simon are all Americans. To enable the readers to fully understand the research question, the researcher will first define organizational structure as well as the organizational culture before comparing the difference between the two management control methods. Through the process of conducting a literature review, the researcher will identify the evolution of organizational structure and organizational culture. Prior to concluding as to whether or not organisational culture has totally replaced the importance of organisational structure as a more dominant method of management control within an organisation as well as whether or not it would be a good idea to consider whether these sorts of generalizations can be applied in a global manner or whether they tend to reflect the dominance of the US experience in management theory, the researcher will seek to examine the degree of detachment from the use of the formal rules and regulations within the UK government organization. Definition of Words Organizational structure is the structural pattern that is created within the organization based on the importance of each employee’s role. (Mabey, Salaman, & Storey, 2001; Mullins, 1993) The main purpose of the structure is to organize the allocation of work and responsibilities so as to hasten the accomplishment of the organizational goals. With the presence of an organizational structure, it is easier for the leaders to develop a strategic plan and control the internal activities within the organization. (Mabey, Salaman, & Storey, 2001) In line with the organizational structure is the classical bureaucracies which is normally based on a set of principles of hierarchy, authority as well as organizational control. (Weber, 1981 [1945]) These bureaucracies are structured into different compartmentalised hierarchial layers to determine the significance of the employees authoritative power within the organization. On the other hand, organizational culture is referring to “a set of norms, beliefs, principles and behaviour that gives the organization a unique character.” (Brown, 1995) On the other hand, David (1999: 143) defines organizational culture as “a pattern of behaviour developed by an organization to cope with problems related to external adaptation and internal integration aside from enabling the employees to feel and think positively.” In general, culture is a paradigm developed by individuals within the organization which over time forms a strong pattern of behaviour and belief that could significantly affect the employees’ perception towards the organizational goals and success. (Willcoxson & Millett, 2000) In line with developing a strong organizational culture, a good leader plays an important role in shaping the culture which is designed to promote the loyalty of its employees and persuade them to participate in supporting the attainability of the organizational goal within the heirarchy. (DuBrin, 2002: 298; Hellreigel et al., 2001; Hampden-Turner, 1990: 7, 9) According to Aspinwall and Staudinger (2003: 156), it is the attitude and standards of behaviour of the leaders that shapes the organizational culture. The Past and Current Organizational Structure and Culture The process of formal and informal institutionalism and bureaucratization continuous to shape and develop new critiques which resulted to the creation a diverse organizational structure and complex organizational cultures we have today. In the past, the Classical Management School strongly believe that organizational structure which refers to a centralized and strict formal authority of the top manager is the best framework for organizational success. (Donaldson, 1996) In line with this structure, the stakeholders within a bureaucracy are expected to follow the organizational rules and procedures set by the administration. According to Weber (1981 [1945]), ‘authority’ is the basis for the development of bureaucracy. Therefore, a division of labour based on their specialization and line of work and the hierarchy of authority are being observed. Theorists behind the study of bureaucratic organizations such as Weber, Taylor, Simon and Fayol agree that a bureaucratic organization should consist of hierarchies that could enable the government leaders and employees to achieve their tasks. In other words, there will always be a top down management control in a bureaucratic structure. (Scott, 1996) The problem with implementing a pure bureaucratic structure is that it fails to address the humanization aspects within the organization. (Weber, 1981) Since 1930s, the Human Relations School challenged the classical understanding of organizational structure by shifting the focus of organization studies from the importance of organizational hierarchy to the importance of human aspects. (Donaldson, 1996) In relation to the changes in organization studies, the concept of decentralisation, empowerment, delegation of authority and teamwork become equally important. Based on the structural contingency theory which was developed during the late 1950s, it is impossible to for a single organizational structure to be enough to ensure the effectiveness of a government organization considering that structure in general is highly dependent on ‘contingency factors’ like the organizational size, strategy used within the organization, the uncertainty of task requirements, leadership building, conflict resolution and socialisation which are all significantly influenced by external factors such as the private sectors and the society as a whole. (Donaldson, 1996; Mundala, n.d.) In other words, a government can produce a better organizational performance only if the organizational structure could satisfy all these contingency factors. (Donaldson, 1996; Drazin & Van de Ven, 1985) For instance, in case the organizational tasks has a fix pattern and is repetitive, top management’s decision-making process and planning should adopt the concept of centralisation and formalization. A low uncertain tasks within a small government organization is most effectively performed using a centralised hierarchy. On the other hand, uncertain tasks within a large government organization requires decentralization and the reduction of hierarchial formalization and control to enable the skilled workers to have the freedom to make their own decisions suitable for the uncertain tasks via teamwork. This is because a uncertain tasks within a large environment requires more information processing which could affect the communication and control structure. (Galbraith, 1977) The past concept of organizational structures failed to consider the impact of gender issues like gendered subculture within the organization. (Mills & Peta Tancred, 1992) It was in 1980s when the feminist approach to organizations took place. The radical feminists insists that socialisation among women enables them to perform better tasks than men within a democratic, non-hierarchical organization and participatory. (Savage & Witz, 1992) In line with these changes includes the radical suggestions for the promotion of a women-centred, no leader requirements, and no structure organizations to avoid masculine values, authority, leadership, competition, etc. Today, most of the European organization acknowledges the need for an organizational change from the usual idea of implementing a centralized and strict formal authority of the top manager to the importance of developing an organizational culture since culture is the only variable within the organization that could significantly influence the organizational efficiency as well as its performance. (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Peter & Waterman, 1982) In fact, a strong organizational culture often serves as the basis for allocating power, authority, rewards and punishment as well as friendship and respect. (Willcoxson & Millett, 2000) Aside from increasing the effectiveness of a government institution, organization culture is believed to influence not only the present performance but also the success of its future goals. (DuBrin, 2002; David, 1999; Robbins, 1998) The fact that organizational culture lessens the importance of organizational structure means allowing each employee to have a control over his/her responsibility or tasks in the government offices. Discussion Having been a government worker for quite a long time, I have noticed the strong promotion of organizational culture within our office. Even though the presence of organizational culture and ‘de-structured’ form of organizational structure is very much noticeable, our office is legally characterized by the traditional compartmentalized concept of organizational structure. Since the start of the 20th century, a much less traditional form of organizational structure is widely used in many organizations in order to increase the speed, flexibility, innovation and integration of the business transaction. (Mabey, Salaman, & Storey, 2001; Ashkenas et al., 1995: 7) Through the process of organizational changes and the implementation and promotion of organizational culture, the public services offered by the UK government organizations is much better than it was without the adaptation of organizational culture. In line with the improved organizational efficiency, Mabey, Salaman, & Storey (2001) explains that the new paradigm for the current organizational practices improves the work efficiencies of the employees by removing the rigidity and long transaction processes that are present with the use of a strict traditional organizational structure. Despite the important role of organizational culture in the improved work performance of employees in the UK government, it would be impossible to totally remove the organizational structure since the structure itself serves as the organization’s backbone that supports teamwork as well as the dynamic interaction among the employees as well as the government employees with the local citizens. (Lewin & Regine, 1999: 105) Conclusion There are a lot of evidences that suggest that the design principles of the study behind the modern organization still follow the traditional structure of bureaucracy and hierarchy. (Mabey, Salaman, & Storey, 2001; McMaster, 1996) Over the years, the historical transformation of organizational structure and culture shows us the gradual shift of importance between implementing a purely centralized organizational structure and the promotion of organizational culture. Despite the changes in terms of the importance of both organizational theories, it is impossible for organizational culture to totally replace the importance organizational structure as a method of management control within the government organization. Basically, office policies and procedures that are based on organizational culture are known for being capable of increasing the organizational performance and personal work-related satisfaction among the employees. (Robbins, 1998) Despite the claims that organizational culture is unitary and integrated, it is rather difficult to prevent the existence of a differentiated sub-culture within the organization (Frost et al., 1991: 8) because of the historical shift in the paradigm of organizational structure from a traditional centralized form into a more de-centralized structure. From this standpoint, it is very clear that organizational structure and organizational culture does not work independently. These organizational frameworks are very much interdependent with one another due to the fact that organizational structure could significantly affect the development of organizational culture through the higher government officials. Considering that the UK government is a very large organization, removing all of its bureaucratic departments could mean disrupting the entire operations of the government. Another point of consideration is the fact that the classical bureaucracy translates the organizational goals within the structure of hierarchy. In the absence of hierarchy of goals, it would be very difficult to make a rational decision-making on behalf of the government organization. (Scott, 1998) Organizational culture with less bureaucracy means empowering the government employees to have more control in terms of decision-making when solving minor organizational problems. However, a more complex decision-making should still be addressed by the top government officials. In order to ensure a long-term efficiency in the government service, organizational leaders should be creative enough to integrate only the important aspects of the organizational structure with culture. Based on the explanation that was discussed in this paper, it is possible to apply this idea in a global manner. *** End *** References: Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (1995). The Boudaryless Organization Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Aspinwall, L., & Staudinger, U. (2003). Psychology of Human Strengths: Fundamental Questions and Future Directions for a Positive Psychology. Washington: American Psychological Association. Brown, A. (1995). Organizational Culture. London: Pitman Publishing. David, F. (1999). Strategic Management: Concepts. 7th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Donaldson, L. (1996). The Normal Science of Structural Contingency Theory - Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage Publication. Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. (1985). Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly , 30:514 - 539. DuBrin, A. (2002). Fundamentals of Organizational Behaviour. USA: Thomson Learning. Frost, P., Moore, L., Reis Louis, M., Lundberg, C., & Martin, J. (1991). Reframing Organizational Culture. Newbury Park: Sage Publication. Galbraith, J. (1977). Organization Design. In Tidd J. and Hull F. (eds) Organizing for Service Innovation: Best-Practice or Configurations?. UK: Science and Technology Policy Research. Electronic Working Paper Series No. 77. Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Creating Corporate Culture. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Hellreigel, D., Jackson, S., Slocum, J., Straude, G., & Associates. (2001). Management. Oxford University Press. Lewin, R., & Regine, B. (1999). The Soul at Work. London: Orion Business Books. Mabey, C., Salaman, G., & Storey, J. (2001). Organizational Structuing and Restructuring. In Salaman G. (eds) Understanding Business Organizations. London: Routledge. McMaster, M. (1996). The Intelligence Advantage. Organizaing for Complexity. Newton, MA: Butterworth Heinemann. Mills, J., & PetaTancred, A. (1992). Gendering Organizational Analysis. USA: Sage Publication. Mullins, L. (1993). Management and Organizational Behaviour. 3rd Edition. London: Pitman Publishing. Mundala, P. (n.d.). HR Folks International. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from Strategic Imperatives Driving Business Performance: Available at: http://www.hrfolks.com/knowledgebank/future%20of%20mgmt/doing%20business%20-%20strat%20imperatives.pdf Peter, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from Americas Best Run Companies. NY: Harper & Row. Robbins, S. (1998). Organizational Behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Savage, M., & Witz, A. (1992). Gender and Bureaucracy. UK: Blackwcll Publishers The Sociological Review. Scott, R. W. (1998). Organizations as Rational Systems, Ch. 2. In Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 4th Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. 33 - 55. Scott, R. W. (1996). The Mandate is Still being Honored. In Defense of Webers Disciples. Administrative Science Quarterly , 46:163 - 171. Weber, M. (1981 [1945]). Bureaucracy.Reprinted excerpts on pp. 7-36 in Oscar Grusky and George A. Miller (Eds.), The Sociology of Organiziations: Basic Studies. New York: The Free Press. Willcoxson, L., & Millett, B. (2000). The Management of Organizational Culture. Australian Journal of Management & Organisational Behaviour , 3(2): 91 - 99. Read More