Reference no: EM131230729

PLEASE REBUTTAL AND ANSWER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OR POST STATEMENTS. MUST BE 150 WORDS (PLEASE), WRITE IN 3RD PERSON.ONLY ONE REFERENCE CAN BE USED FOR EACH ANSWER.

DQ 1. Mechanistic organizational design often refers to rigid hierarchical designs and often characterized by vertical lines of communication (Lewis &Fant, 1989). On the surface, this structure seems extremely rigid and often militaristic. As a retired officer from the Army, following a structure through a hierarchical model in the military can mean life or death. Lines of communication are critical. The two most important pieces of communication required are the mission statement and the commander's intent. As long as a unit operates in this boundary, then officers exercise flexibility to coordinate and adjust changes as necessary. Lewis and Fant also outline an organic organization as one that is flexible, horizontal, open, high uncertainty, and often unstructured. Hinrich (2009) argues that organic organizations deliver what they design to deliver.

She further explained that lack of uncertainty or understanding in design may not lead to a desired result. From one end of the spectrum, an overly open organization may not produce the desired outcome to meet organizational goals. Lastly, contemporary design. Perhaps in recent literature a system that best identifies a contemporary design is the complex adaptive systems approach. Nair et al., (2016) found that connected processes across organization and into the network level, creates and spreads environmental innovations. In other words, once the concept developed through a vision, mission, guidance through a process into the network level then self-organization and decentralized control occurred (Nair et al., 2016). The contemporary design can offer an amalgamation between mechanistic and organic design. Contemporary design offers the necessary communication of intent with the organization with the flexibility to accomplish the intent through networks that may often come together for the purpose of one objective.

Hinrichs, G., (2009). Organic Organizational Design. OD Practitioner, 41(4), 4-11. Retrieved 30 September 2016 from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=44511167&site=eds-live&scope=site

Lewis, P. S., & Fandt, P. M. (1989). Organizational Design: Implications for Managerial Decision-Making. SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075), 54(4), 13. Retrieved 30 September 2016 from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4613720&site=eds-live&scope=site

Nair, A., Tingting, Y., Ro, Y. K., Oke, A., Chiles, T. H., & Su-Yol, L. (2016). How Environmental Innovations Emerge and Proliferate in Supply Networks: A Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2), 66-86.

DQ 2

Blaigh, Burton and Obul (1996) underscores the fact, organizational design is a normative science, which focuses on how organizations should be structured in order to achieve organizational objectives. Organizations are structured in many different ways and these can be placed on a continuum ranging from mechanistic to organic. Daft (2016)

This short paper discusses, the elements of mechanistic and organs organic structural designs and their implications for organizational effectiveness.

The concept of o Mechanistic designs according to Daft (2016) means that the organization represents a machine model such that it is characterized by rigid standards, hierarchal structures, rules and procedures, centralized authority, and a high degree of formality. In such organizations decision making is centralized and is made t the top of the hierarchy. Moreover according to Henrichs (2009) centralized control is self-limiting. These structures are characterized by the elements of specialization and division of labour, hierarchal structures and formalization.

In these types of structures decisions are usually top down, and does not allow employees to go beyond the limits of their authority and as such can stifle creativity and decision making. Additionally decision making and organizational response can be particularly slow. While there are exceptionally high negatives for these types of organizational design particularly in today's environment of globalization, Hosseinpour and Taban (2016) in a study found that such designs could be effective in some organizations. The authors found positive correlations between such elements as formalization, organizational complexity, and centralization of authority and organizational performance. Similar results were also obtained by Razminia and Zeymaran (2016)

Organic designed organizational structures are loose free flowing and in the words of Daft (2016) very adaptive. In such organizations a minimum of rules exist, the hierarchy is not always clear cut and decision making is decentralized, making it possible for employees to respond to organizational needs, request far more easily. The elements of such systems are characterized by decentralization of authority, team work, collaboration, horizontal communication.

Organizations with organic structures can be extremely effective and Henrichs (2009) makes the point hat in today's environment, characterized by globalization, increasing customer demands, and the requirement for speedy decision making, a more thinking and educated work force, a mechanistic designed structure is inappropriate to efficiently met customer needs.

The earlier mechanistic structures were held together by force or by an authority figure, but Grant (2016) underscores the fact The fact that organizationally designed organizations are held together by shared values, shared beliefs, values and commitment and not force. Moreover because information is held where the value is created, organizations which are organically designed thrive.

The new global environment demands organizations that are adaptive and such organizations, given their adaptability to changing circumstances thrive more often than not.

References

Daft R (2016) Organizational Theory and design. 12th edition. Cencage learning I S B N.

Henrichs G 92009) Organic organizational design, The American Psychological Association 41(4) 4-41

Hosseinpour H and Taban M (2016). The relationship between structure, and performance from emergency staff viewpoints. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Sciences.3 92) 40-46

Shajee H, Razminia E and Zeymaran N K (2016) Investigating the relationship between organizational structure, Factors and performance. Internal Journal of Management Accounting and Economics. 3(2) 160-165.

Organizational design. Management Science (12) 1648.