The Need for Adaptability: Overcoming Organizational Rigidity and Embracing Change

When you speak about the giant tech. organisation you work for you appear to describe a formal organisational structure which involve rigidity of policies ,less flexibility, less creativity and more centralised decision making . Would you say that your giant tech. organisation is successful ? My point  is no one organisation structure is absolute right or wrong and that each structure has its own advantages and disadvantages.

According to Kotter (2012), we cannot dismiss the daily demands to run a company which traditional hierarchies and managerial processes can still do well. However, an organisation’s set of contingencies must not be ignored in the process of designing such hierarchies. If those structures do not do well in adapting to changes in environment i.e do not do well in identifying hazards and opportunities early enough then managers may need to change the structure because it does not align well with one of the factors that impact their organisation.  Kotter (2012), for instance, suggests creating a second operating system that is devoted to respond with agility,speed, and creativity  and which complement the existing current structure (Kotter , 2012).  Colleagues , is this proposition applicable to make up for the rigidity of large organisations ? and how this second operating system may look like if your organisation is suffering from a similar situation ?

According to Daft et al.’s (2014) views, these are six contingencies. In this module, the idea of goodness-of-fit between a planned structure and an organistaion’s own contingencies is picked up as we move from one topic to another. For instance, vertical hierarchies were found to fit in with the need for control and functional specialisation ( e.g. I would imagine test labs to have a high degree of control and procedures to ensure safety ) while horizontal hierarchies emphasis coordination and collaboration among different teams , units or parts of an organisation to respond to customer needs rapidly (Anand and Daft, 2007) .

Anand, N. and Daft, R.L. (2007) . What is the right organization design?.  Organizational Dynamics, 36(4), 329–344.

Daft, R.L., Murphy, J. & Willmott, H. (2014). Organization Theory and Design: An International Perspective, 2nd ed. CengageLearning.

Kotter, J. (2012). How the most innovative companies capitalize on today’s rapid-fire strategic challenges-and still make their numbers. Harvard business review, 90(11), 43-58.

Response

I do not regard my organization as being successful. Even if it may be making huge amounts of profits, and be well-established in the industry and market, changes in the market or industry may prove extremely difficult to adapt to. Having a formal organization structure means that my organization does not quite encourage any creativity or changes in policies. Decision making is left to the top-level management, and orders are given and communicated via an established hierarchy of command and control. It is true that a formal organization structure ensures that there are no misinterpretations as the set rules and protocol are observed. However, it results in decision-making problems and bureaucracy (Kotter, 2012).

Market changes or even changes in consumer trends and preferences cannot be easily accommodated in a formal organization structure (Anand & Daft, 2007). My organization would need to restructure itself in the eventuality of such a change. The proposition by Kotter (2012) to have a second OS that can respond to changes in operations with speed and creativity would be really beneficial to an organization only having one OS that works only with the current operational setup. It is also beneficial to have a standby system in any business. Having an organizational structure that does not require a lot of authorization and protocol before responding to problems faced in areas such as marketing would increase a company’s responsiveness to challenges and quicken the process of marketing.

References

Kotter, J. (2012). How the most innovative companies capitalize on today’s rapid-fire strategic challenges-and still make their numbers. Harvard business review, 90(11), 43-58.

Anand, N. and Daft, R.L. (2007) . What is the right organization design?.  Organizational Dynamics, 36(4), 329–344.