Organizational Chart

Topic: Organization Structure

Name:

Course:

Instructor’s Name:

Date:

Organizations around the globe are as healthy as their structures (Ooshaksaraie, M., Hadi, A. M., & Farajpur, Z. (2011). For efficiency, organizations formally organize their employees in ways facilitating their focus to tasks. Business organizations currently are defined by red oceans strategies that are very dynamic and competitive in nature. The increased internal and external complexities can only be salvaged by a transformative approach such as a dual focus. This hybrid sort of structure complements the functional structure with the divisional structure. (Spector, B. (2013). Our organization, Pretix Corporation prides itself of living the new normal era by having a matrix structure which is fashioned by an overlap between functional and divisional norms. This has taken the approach of aligning departments to functions and geographical locations given its global footprint.

Pretix Corporation Limited Organization Structure

Chief Executive Officer

V. President Administration

P

V. President Purchasing

P

V. President Production

P

Administration Staff

Purchasing Staff

Production Staff

Project Manager 1

Administration Staff

Purchasing Staff

Production Staff

Project Manager 2

The Pretix organization has its employees reporting to more than one immediate supervisor. The functional supervisors mainly oversee the employees in their functional roles while project supervisors tend to oversee specialized realms that in most cases are temporal. For example, a production staff would report to the Vice President in charge of production and also to the specific project manager undersigned an ideal case of dual management.

Merits of Matrix Structure

According to Spector, B. 2013, matrix structure has enabled most firms to ripple with innumerable merits. A proper structure acts as a building block to good coordination, effective communication, control and seamless operations. It facilitates resources coordination through encouraging specialization within the organization which yields excellence. Its hallmark has been elimination of unwarranted conflicts, battered productivity and financial delinquency. In addition, it offers dual reporting lines with minimal hierarchical setting which increases flexibility and betters the quality of decisions made. It offers wider opportunities for interactions that promote exchange of ideas across various functions which deepen employees’ breadth of skills set.

Demerits of Matrix Structure

Despite harnessing lots of value, the matrix structure may lose meritocracy when characterized by complexities that lead to floodgates of confusion. (Spector, B. (2013). Its lack of singular reporting relationship may lead to rise in conflicts, self-defeating competitions, ambiguity that impair clarity of communication. This may inflate employee dissatisfaction and kill morale that eventually leads to high turnover rates. Additionally, this structure exposes a firm to high cost of operations in order to service the dual management. The strain on resources may be compounded by internal rivalry that hinders productivity. (Takahara, Y., Mesaovic, M., & Klir, G. J. (2004).)

Behavior changes needed to adopt Matrix Structure

Organizations thrive best when employees’ behaviors conform to their strategies thus yielding outstanding performance (Miri, A., Rangriz, H., & Sabzikaran, E. (2011). A change is essential in a cultivated and motivated manner to attain desirous states of heightened adaptability and sustainability. However, this stretches beyond their conduct at work or with colleagues to the collective roles enactment, responsibilities and relationships consortium. This re-designation of activities leads to transformative change. (Spector, B. (2013).)

Their level of motivation underscores performance. A change in behavior increases willingness and capability to offers solutions, satiate customers more and promote competitive adaptation. However, this may be thwarted by employees need to maintain status quo, failure to see chance of fruition, perception of personal threat and high cost attachment. (Spector, B. (2013).). Positive value association to new norms should be nurtured to hasten breaking away from traditional retrogressive habits. The following would include viable behavior change types needed to steer firms to stardom

The behavioral view of an organization as an open system. This would inculcate complementary approach between actions and interdependent interactions across multi-facets of the organization thus providing a best fit platform. Besides the alignment of internal environment to the external business environment, employees may subscribe to the all stakeholders approach which promotes ethical conducts. This facilitates a sustainable and responsible citizenry role that is perfectly in sync with the dynamic environment. (Spector, B. (2013).)

Process driven change would be at the heart of this success. Unlike content-driven approach that focuses on responsiveness to organizational requirement, process driven view takes a transformative path cognizant of conception, introduction and institutionalization as sole avenues of effectiveness. (Spector, B. (2013).) It offers a participatory, collaborative and problem solving mechanism that aligns behaviors to organization’s strategic requirements. Its change-oriented programs such as; business process reengineering, six sigma and lean enterprise, balance scorecard and Agile go a long way in aiding behavior reinforcement. This creates a breeding ground for new behavior patterns through established purpose and strategy.

Additionally, it would be vital to instill task alignment. This sharpens all business facets inclusive of process based change, open system view of issues and strategic renewal. It is a building block for performance hallmark through redesigning roles, various responsibilities and interrelationships that are insightful to organizational progress.

Reasons for the Matrix Structure being appropriate

The matrix structure is a viable idea for our organization since it has facilitated the allocation of value driven tasks and placement of roles in correlation to efficiency, quality enhancement and customer eccentricity to achieve a competitive edge. It has been a catalyst for transforming vision into solid courses of action by encouraging the prioritization of functions and tasks establishment. (Takahara, Y., Mesaovic, M., & Klir, G. J. (2004).

Matrix structure adoption propels the fruition of strategy execution, relevant fusion of organizational core functions and personnel support initiation. The ability of the matrix structure to heighten employee loyalty, deflate confusion, widen acceptability and above all boost their morale is an understatement. Besides the competitive advantage, this structure makes the firm sustainable by increasing its responsiveness to environmental needs. Its visibility is best experienced through its prowess in creating a learning acumen, integration of cross functional process, content, people and technology and problem solving approach that inspires innovation. (Takahara, Y., Mesaovic, M., & Klir, G. J. (2004)

Conclusion

Matrix structure would foster strategic renewal given the operating environment’s dynamics. It is supplemental to new structures, systems and processes which are inclined to better performance. Besides, it broadens organizational view as more open and responsive system that can only grow when individual contribution is woven by company-wide collaborative effort (Spector, B. (2013). It is essential in achieving a competitive edge through facilitating efficient exchange of information and deepening of motivation, however, this may be short lived when complexities arise leading to confusion and unnecessary costs. To actualize its potent power, organizations need to encourage behavior changes such as being customer eccentric, promoting open and honest dialogues, integration of all business facets and mobilization of team support.

References

1. Spector, B. (2013). Implementing Organizational Change: Theory into practice. Boston: Pearson

2. Takahara, Y., Mesaovic, M., & Klir, G. J. (2004). Organization Structure. Boston: Springer US.

3. Ooshaksaraie, M., Hadi, A. M., & Farajpur, Z. (2011). Relation between Organizational Structure and Organizational Entrepreneurship: Case Study: Manufacturing Companies in the West of Mazandaran Province \\ Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review.- 2011, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 150-159. Kuwait: American University.

4. Miri, A., Rangriz, H., & Sabzikaran, E. (2011). The Relationship between Organizational Structure and Employees' Empowerment in National Iranian Oil Products Distribution Company \\ Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review.- 2011, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 51-68. Kuwait: American University.