BUS FPX 4013 Assessment 1 Organizational Structures

Student Name

Capella University

BUS-FPX4013 Organizational Structure, Learning, and Performance

Prof. Name

Date

Organizational Structures

Organizations are built with a specific structure; it is their foundation from which they build everything else off of. There is more than one type of organizational structures including mechanistic and organic. Up until recently, a mechanistic structure was consider normal and most widely used among organizations, however with the change happening all of the time in the local and global environment, an organic approach could be a more suitable option for organizations in order to increase success and flexibility.

Mechanistic Organizational Structure

In a mechanistic organizational structure, a workplace is detailed, organized, and well defined. There is a specific hierarchy, structured policies and procedures, as well as specified duties for each position. For example, a manager would have the control and authority over their employees and happenings of their department. Due to the formal nature of a mechanistic organization, it is easy to manage and run. However, when a change is necessary it can be more complex to handle.

Organic Organizational Structure

In an organic organizational structure, there is a holistic philosophy and approach to business. While there is a still a form of hierarchy, collaboration among all of the staff is what is most important. The environment of an organic organizational structure is integrative, adaptable, and interconnected; it thrives on its network of people. Its flexibility allows for changes to be made easily, but it can also be difficult to build and manage.

Differences in Organizational Structures

Mechanistic and organic organizations are essentially the opposites of each other. A couple of the main differences that set these two types of organizations apart are leadership and relationships as well as roles and responsibilities. Leadership in a mechanistic organizational structure looks like a common form of hierarchy. This includes a vertical line of control and authority from the top to the bottom. Relationships in this type of structure are harder to form because of the individual assignments as opposed to group tasks and as a result of having different offices. For instance, every individual is given their own undertakings and they don’t normally work with others to finish these assignments.

This doesn’t allow into consideration much correspondence or cooperation among workers, which doesn’t leave a lot of space to construct connections. In an organic organizational structure leadership is more of a horizontal design. While there are still leaders within the organization, every one works as a team.

The tasks are not given to individual people, but instead are worked on in group settings. When leaders work in unison with their employees it builds a sense of empowerment. This is beneficial to the organization as a whole because “empowered employees are intrinsically motivated to take initiative, complete assignments with a sense of purpose, and be good organizational citizens” (Dust, Resick, & Mawritz, 2014).

External Environment

The external environment plays a big role in the organizational structure of a company. For example, the needs and desires of customers affect the organization which in turn affects the structure of the organization. For example, product loyal customers would want the product to remain the same. This does not require adaptability from the organization that makes the product. However for the customers that are constantly looking for the new and improved products, a more organic structure may be useful in this setting because flexibility is necessary to keep up with the demands of the external environment.

The demands of the local and global environment are changing all of the time. This is especially apparent in the technology world. In the world of technology, there is so much that these tools are able to do and accomplish. These demands not only affect the organizations in terms of products, but also in terms of productivity. In some organizations, technology can make completing tasks more efficiently such as keeping things organized. In the future, it is likely that technology will continue to change which could enhance organizational productivity through simplifying time-consuming tasks.

Hyper-Change and Hyper-Competition

The disturbance of change can be hard for anybody, particularly companies, since it is change, which implies that it will require a cognizant exertion to accomplish something different in contrast to how it has been. At the point when an association is very much organized through its strategies and methods, it tends to be hard to change these dependent on the hyper-change of the quick-paced, ever-evolving world. Some portion of this difficulty exists in the communication of the organization just as through the policies that might be influenced by the change.

A natural organization is all the more deftly to deal with hyper-change because of its all-encompassing nature; with less structure, change is reliable, accordingly it is simpler to deal with. Hyper-competition can be hard to stay aware of relying upon competitive organizations and their reactions to an association’s endeavor of hyper-competition. Hyper-competition is characterized as “a quick escalation of competitive tactics used among direct business competitors” (Business Dictionary, n.d., para. 1). These tactics typically include changes in prices or improvements in products.

The turbulence from this originates from staying aware of the products from competitive organizations and how to counteract them. Once more, changing normal occurrences within a mechanistic association is more troublesome than in a natural structure in light of the internal environment. Correspondence and collaboration are agreeable to a quicker arrangement and changes to products.

Conclusion

The external environment is thoroughly changing to satisfy the needs of society and to stay aware of competing organizations. Both mechanic and natural associations have their places. For most organizations, adopting an increasingly natural structure would benefit them through being progressively adaptable to change and through enabling workers to arrive at organization-wide goals. This is why this sort of structure is increasingly suitable to the present external environment. In any case, for the rest of the associations, continuing with a mechanic kind of structure could help maintain productivity when change is less frequent or even undesirable among clients.

References

Business Dictionary. (n.d.). Hypercompetition. Retrieved from: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/hypercompetition.html

Dust, S. B., Resick, C. J., & Mawritz, M. B. (2014). Transformational leadership, psychological empowerment, and the moderating role of mechanistic-organic contexts. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 413-433. Doi:10.1002/job.1904

BUS FPX 4013 Assessment 1 Organizational Structures