Human resource management practice I also available by michael armstrong

tabLe 

11.2

 

Mechanistic and organic design

Mechanistic design

Organic design

Structure

 

●

Formal

 

●

Hierarchical (command  

and control)

 

●

Distinct functional units

 

●

Informal

 

●

Flat, lean and flexible-horizontal  

processes

 

●

Lattice structure

Work

 

●

Tightly defined jobs

 

●

Minimal scope in jobs for  

decision-making

 

●

Closely controlled work groups

 

●

Flexible roles

 

●

Enriched roles with more  

autonomy

 

●

Self-managed teams

---

Part 

2

  People and Organizations

144

the way in which activities are grouped and 

decentralized; the span of control of 

managers (the number of separate functions 

or people they are directly responsible for); 

any overlap between functions or gaps 

leading to the neglect of certain activities; the 

existence of unnecessary departments, units, 

functions or layers of management; the 

clarity with which individual responsibilities 

and accountabilities are defined.

3 

Diagnosis to identify (on the basis of the 

activities and structural analyses) the reasons 

for any structural problems facing the 

organization or function.

4 

The choice in the light of the analyses and 

diagnosis of how the business or part of it 

should be designed or revised.

5 

A plan to implement any revisions to the 

structure, possibly in phases.

Checklists covering the points that should be con-

sidered in analysing activities and structures are set 

out in the organization design toolkit (Chapter 62). 

When conducting the review the following factors 

should be taken into account.

Changes in the nature of 

organizations

As noted by Parker et al (2001: 418): ‘Organizations... 

differ  from  the  rather  static  and  inflexible  enter-

prises of earlier times. Greater flexibility is required 

to enable the rapid delivery of low-cost, high-quality 

and customized products, and to provide increasingly 

powerful and demanding customers with seamless 

service.’ They also noted that the use of teamwork-

ing and other flexible forms of working continues 

to grow, distinctions between departments are dis-

appearing as organizations become more integrated, 

and IT has changed the way in which work is con-

ducted.  These  considerations  may  indicate  that  a 

traditional hierarchical and rigid structure is inap-

propriate and a more flexible approach is required.

Minimum critical specification

In accordance with systems theory (see Chapter 10) 

and  the  principle  of  equifinality  (the  premise  that 

multiple organizational forms are equally effective), 

Huczynski and Buchanan (2007: 89) suggested that: 

‘It is not necessary to specify in detail the organiza-

tion structure and the duties of each member. If an 

organization can develop its own method of operat-

ing and change that as circumstances require, then 

it will be necessary only to detail the basic and most 

significant  aspects.  This  approach  to  organization 

design is called minimum critical specification.’

Strategic choice

As noted above, there is always choice about what 

form an organization structure should take. Child 

(1972)  explained  that  in  making  such  choices  the 

leadership group (the dominant coalition) had to be 

persuaded  to  influence  the  organization  structure 

through an essentially political process. He called this 

process ‘strategic  choice’.  Choice  analysis  regards 

debate and negotiation in the social networks exist-

ing in organizations as integral to decision-making 

on organizational structures.