#Notes 7.3 Contemporary Forms of Organizational Structures

7.3 Contemporary Forms of Organizational Structures

Beginning in the 1970s, management experts began to propose organizational designs that they believed were better adapted to the needs of the emerging business environment. Each structure has unique qualities to help businesses handle their particular environment.

Matrix Organization

Matrix Organizations

• Combines a traditional functional structure with a product structure.
• To balance the benefits of product-based and traditional functional structures. 
• Specifically, employees reporting to department managers are also pooled together to form project or product teams. 
• Each person reports to a department manager as well as a project or product manager. 
• Product managers have control and say over product-related matters, while department managers have authority over matters related to company policy. 
• Created in response to uncertainty and dynamism of the environment and the need to give particular attention to specific products or projects. 
• Using the matrix structure as opposed to product departments may increase communication and cooperation among departments because project managers will need to coordinate their actions with those of department managers. 
• Research shows that matrix structure increases the frequency of informal and formal communication within the organization.
• Matrix structures also have the benefit of providing quick responses to technical problems and customer demands. 
• The existence of a project manager keeps the focus on the product or service provided.
• An example of a matrix structure at a software development company. Business analysts, developers, and testers each report to a functional department manager and to a project manager simultaneously.

• Each employee reports to two or more managers. This situation is ripe for conflict. Because multiple managers are in charge of guiding the behaviors of each employee, there may be power struggles or turf wars among managers. 
• As managers are more interdependent compared to a traditional or product-based structure, they will need to spend more effort coordinating their work. 
• From the employee’s perspective, there is potential for interpersonal conflict with team members as well as with leaders. 
• The presence of multiple leaders may create role ambiguity or, worse, role conflict—being given instructions or objectives that cannot all be met because they are mutually exclusive. 
• The necessity to work with a team consisting of employees with different functional backgrounds increases the potential for task conflict at work. Solving these problems requires a great level of patience and proactivity on the part of the employee.
• The matrix structure is used in many information technology companies engaged in software development. 
• Sportswear manufacturer Nike is another company that uses the matrix organization successfully. New product introduction is a task shared by regional managers and product managers. While product managers are in charge of deciding how to launch a product, regional managers are allowed to make modifications based on the region.

Boundary-less Organizations

• Boundary-less organization refers to an organization that eliminates traditional barriers between departments as well as barriers between the organization and the external environment. 
• The modular Organization. An organization where all the nonessential functions are outsourced. The idea behind this format is to retain only the value-generating and strategic functions in-house, while the rest of the operations are outsourced to many suppliers. An example of a company that does this is Toyota. By managing relationships with hundreds of suppliers, Toyota achieves efficiency and quality in its operations. 
• Strategic alliances (A form of boundary-less design where two or more companies find an area of collaboration and combine their efforts to create a partnership that is beneficial for all parties.) constitute another form of boundary-less design. In this form, similar to a joint venture, two or more companies find an area of collaboration and combine their efforts to create a partnership that is beneficial for both parties. In the process, the traditional boundaries between two competitors may be broken. As an example, Starbucks formed a highly successful partnership with PepsiCo to market its Frappuccino cold drinks. Starbucks has immediate brand-name recognition in this cold coffee drink, but its desire to capture shelf space in supermarkets required marketing savvy and experience that Starbucks did not possess at the time. By partnering with PepsiCo, Starbucks gained an important head start in the marketing and distribution of this product. 
• Boundary-less organizations may involve eliminating the barriers separating employees; these may be intangible barriers, such as traditional management layers, or actual physical barriers, such as walls between different departments. Structures such as self-managing teams create an environment where employees coordinate their efforts and change their own roles to suit the demands of the situation, as opposed to insisting that something is “not my job.”

Learning Organizations

A learning organization (One where acquiring knowledge and changing behavior as a result of the newly acquired knowledge is part of an organization’s design.) is one whose design actively seeks to acquire knowledge and change behavior as a result of the newly acquired knowledge. 

• Experimenting, learning new things, and reflecting on new knowledge are the norms. 
• There are many procedures and systems in place that facilitate learning at all organization levels.
• Experimentation and testing potentially better operational methods are encouraged. This is true not only in response to environmental threats but also as a way of identifying future opportunities. 
• 3M is one company that institutionalized experimenting with new ideas in the form of allowing each engineer to spend one day a week working on a personal project. 
• At IBM, learning is encouraged by taking highly successful business managers and putting them in charge of emerging business opportunities (EBOs). By setting up a structure where failure is tolerated and risk taking is encouraged, the company took a big step toward becoming a learning organization.
• Learning organizations are also good at learning from experience—their own or a competitor’s. To learn from past mistakes, companies conduct a thorough analysis of them. Some companies choose to conduct formal retrospective meetings to analyze the challenges encountered and areas for improvement. To learn from others, these companies vigorously study competitors, market leaders in different industries, clients, and customers. 
• By benchmarking against industry best practices, they constantly look for ways of improving their own operations. Learning organizations are also good at studying customer habits to generate ideas. For example, Xerox uses anthropologists to understand and gain insights to how customers are actually using their office products.