Essay on Different types of organizational structures

Different types of organizational structures

Any organization that is involved in business follows a given organizational structure. Organizational structure refers to hierarchy of people as well as the roles they play. It informs characteristics of an organization and the importance of organizational values. Therefore, while engaging with an organization, an individual is supposed to understand the structure of the organization. Based on the principles and characteristics of the company, for purposes of management, companies have the tendency to use either of the following structures. Although the company should adhere to a given structure, groups and divisions can emerge following other company structures in cases that are remarkable. Some companies might also follow mixed organizational structures as discussed.

Functional Structure

This kind of structure is also known as bureaucratic, it creates divisions in an organization based on specialties. For instance, under this form of business framework, you can allocate individual sections for sales, accounting and marketing. This kind of framework is beneficial as it means having individuals who are utterly committed to one function. In some instances, there can be performance benefits and cost benefits in mixing functions in this manner. However, this kind of structure is very vulnerable to cases of conflict. It can be quite a challenge to accomplish strong interaction lines between departments that are efficient; if the sections are in separate places, actual interaction can be quite a challenge, just as it is knowing the needs of other divisions (Banner 29).

Matrix Structure

This kind of structure integrates functional and additional business types of organizational structures. These are often project groups that provide experienced individuals together from the company but they still have divisions. As such, an individual has 2 bosses: the department administrator and the project administrator. In this kind of business structure, tasks benefits arose from collaboration across the company in the smartest and best company can weigh the tasks they otherwise cannot access. Further, all the divisions have a voice in the process of growth, from real manufacturing of product to its sales and marketing. However, they can as well be complicated. Authority and liability are not described clearly. Matrix organizations as well seem towards growth of cliques, since all decisions are directed to a chosen team (DuBrin 27).

Bureaucratic Structure

Weber argues the completely designed bureaucratic procedure compares to other companies exactly as does the contrast device with non-mechanical ways of manufacturing. Rate, perfection, strict subordination, unambiguity and decrease of friction as well as of personal costs and content are elevated to the best possible point in a bureaucratic management. Bureaucratic components also have a particular standardization level. They are designed best for more complicated and large scale organizations, often implementing tall structure. The stress seen between bureaucratic components and those that are non-bureaucratic can be reflected in Burns and Stalker’s difference between organic and mechanistic structures (DuBrin 44).

An Organizational Structure for the Department of the Treasury

More often, the department of Treasury, must have a described and obvious structure. This means that, described scope and roles of people must not just be norm, but generally documented with specific job specifications and charts. Largely, no remarkable difference exists in structure kinds unless one takes a close look at them.

The constitution of the US assured every agency a republican governing way-that is, an agency run by famously chosen representatives of the individuals. Department of the Treasury authorities, generally are a reflection of federal government: In each division you find, a chosen head, which is independent and famously chosen legislative division.

Bureaucratic structure is a technique of planning individuals and work based on concepts of hierarchical power, official guidelines and job expertise. As a form of organization, bureaucracy has been echoed as one of the most useful approach in getting individuals to work together on projects that are complex and of great scale. Department of the Treasury might not be managed without any large government bureaucracy. The bureaucracy performs the daily work of the agency from the distribution of mail to supply of social security to worldwide diplomacy (DuBrin 77).

Nevertheless, bureaucracy has become a simple management giant for the Department of the Treasury. Bureaucrats exercise great attention in their decision regarding policies. While applying policy, which contains initiation and development of policy, assessment of programs, services distribution and control, bureaucrats create critical policy and government decisions.

The creation of the agency was a reaction to political requirements on nationwide authorities. During the first decades of the nation, there was little bureaucracy, a representation of government national relatively had few obligations outside areas of nationwide security and business. As the economy progressively developed and its regions progressively connected in the late 19th century, bureaucracy extended in reaction to requirements of economic passions and requirements for control of business actions. During the Great Depression, social welfare applications as well as additional business regulating actions were included in obligations of the bureaucratic structure. After World War II, the role of America in international matters and public requirements for additional public services motivated the development of bureaucracy. Government departments increased in the 70’s in a reaction to ecological issues and wide consumer as well as technical change. The bureaucracy development bogged down during the 1980’s due to government budget failures and Reagan’s administration viewpoint (Pride and Jack 90).

Due to its political requirements roots, the bureaucratic structure is necessarily political. A national issue arises from two multiple but not compatible requirements on the bureaucratic structure: that its reaction to the requirements of partisan members but also it provides programs fairly and competently. Such stresses are obvious in personnel management systems under which bureaucratic structure operates: merit, patronage and executive leadership (Donaldson 50).

The bureaucratic federal structure is without doubt involved in state policymaking and policies. The disintegration of authority and multiplicity of the Department of the Treasury led to a policy procedure that was susceptible to argument and conflict. There is no policy mandate or leadership that is clear in the Department of the Treasury as such, government agencies must contend for power that is needed to control systems effectively (Dobson 89). Accordingly, civil servants have the tendency to bide by agency perspective: they seek to advance programs of their agencies and to get rid of efforts by others aimed at damaging their position. An agency viewpoint normally comes to the highest position in a bureaucratic structure. Their long professions and positions within a single organization as well as professional principles is what forces them into believing in the importance of their company’s work. To promote Department of the Treasury, civil servants are dependent on their policy skills, support customer groups an assist the primary executive as well as the legislature. When they are faced with risk from primary executive or legislature, Department of the Treasury often depends on the other for assistance. Institutional competition, party variations and constituency variations are the primary conflict causes between the legislature and primary executive over control of bureaucratic structure.

In bureaucratic structures, leaders are never chosen by the population they serve, but through use of significant independent power, the accountability of the structure is a major problem. The legislature, president and legal courts made provision of significant assessments on bureaucratic structures. The president as well enjoys the privilege to rearrange bureaucratic structures, names leader of the Department of the Treasury and also has control tools (such as executive budget), which have potential to limit bureaucrats discretion. The legislature as well influences the Treasury through its financing and permission abilities and a couple of tools (such as sunset laws and undercover hearings) which holds bureaucrats responsible for their own actions. The role of judiciary in the bureaucratic structure is small compared to elected divisions, though the legal courts have power to force organizations to act in accordance to established procedures, legal purpose and constitutionally assured privileges (Pride and Jack 106).

The bureaucratic structure is not accountable completely. The Department of the Treasury exercises significant independent powers, a state not easily in harmony with democratic principles, especially most crucial principle of self-government. Initiatives to reunite the inconsistent specifications of bureaucratic democracy and structure must factor in the society’s interests in having both qualified and responsive administration. Currently, there are attempts employed to scale down on the Department of the Treasury’s bureaucratic structure. The reduction contains minimized costs, business models, and staff and also includes adjustments in the manner the bureaucratic structure works. The procedure is the outcome of new management concepts and political pressures.


Works Cited

Banner, David K. Designing Effective Organizations: Traditional & Transformational Views.Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.: Sage Publ, 2006. Print.

Dobson, Paul. Strategic Management: Issues and Cases. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Internet resource.

Donaldson, Lex. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.: Sage Publ, 2011. Print.

DuBrin, Andrew J. Essentials of Management. Mason, Ohio: South-Western/Thomson Learning, 2012. Print.

Pride, William M, & Jack R. Kapoor.Business. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008. Print.