University of Phoenix
Technology and Organizational Structure
This paper represents the research on how technology interacts with organizational structure. Two companies will be identified to compare and contrast their organizational structures. A matrix will be included to summarize the findings. Introduction
Organizational structure in today’s complex multi-dimensional organizations is the connection that holds the infrastructure together to achieve the organizations goals. It is the patterns or arrangement of groups of jobs within an organization. It is also a process that requires organizational re-structuring as the company grows. Historically industry has shifted from the job-shop manufacturing to mass production, with innovative pioneers such as Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber ((Dristelzweig & Droege, n.d.). These early pioneers were very different thinkers in terms of their principles to determine how to structure organizations for maximum productivity. However, they all had a common view that it was like a machine and that power was in the position, not in the individual holding the position; clearly a vertical bureaucratic structural hierarchy ((Dristelzweig & Droege, n.d.). This ‘one best way’ mindset gradually disappeared as concerns that the traditional organizational structure may hinder, rather than help promote creativity and innovation (Dristelzweig & Droege, n.d.). Today, pressures in U.S. business structures to compete globally calls for a variety of organization structures. There is no ‘one fit all’ organizational structure that has proven effective in contributing to business success. Organizations operate in different environments with different opportunities, products, tasks, risks, strategies, constraints, strengths and weakness, and different organizational structures to meet those challenges (Reference for Business, n.d.). There are two types of organizational structures found in business environments; centralized and decentralized. Centralized organizational structures rely on one individual to make decisions and provide direction for the company; decentralized organizations rely on a team environment at different levels of the business (Vitez, n.d.). Organizational Structure Overview of Two Company’s
Two very successful companies have been identified with different organizational structures; Toyota Motor Corporation and The Watson’s Creative Company. These two companies are on the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of organizational structure. Toyota, a Japanese, multinational corporation, has a centralized matrix organizational structure (the combination of two or more different structures-organic/mechanistic) with a bureaucratic infrastructure. The Watson’s Creative Company, a New York based adverting agency, has a small-decentralized organic organizational structure (organizations that are flexible and effectively adapt to change) (Dorf & Byers, 2008). Toyota is considered by some as the world’s largest maker of automobiles, trucks, buses, and robots. Toyota has factories all around the world, that manufacture and assemble vehicles for local markets (Taneja, Pryer, & Sewell, 2012). Toyota has an interesting blend of mechanistic, organic and bureaucracy in a centralized organizational structure, which allows them to accommodate their versatile product line. This structure develops a workforce who believes in the company’s products, image, and vision; along with placing a high value on the welfare of its employees (Taneja et al., 2012). A recent SWOT analysis shows that intense competition could pose a threat resulting in lower price pressures. A recent massive product recall (10 million worldwide) which could hurt the company’s brand image and sales ((Toyota, 2012). Toyota is a company that has a reputation for reliability; the challenge now is rebuilding the emotional ties of customers. A...