Evo Executive Summary

The relationship between an organization’s strategy and structure are extremely important because it “directly impacts a firm’s performance” (Rothaermel, 2013, p. 309). Also, as an organization grows, it should reevaluate the current strategy and structure to ensure that it remains the optimal choice for the organization (Rothaermel, 2013). The four types of organizational structures, listed in order of least to most complex according to Rothaermel (2013), are: (1) simple, (2)

An organization must align its strategy and structure to allow itself to achieve performance improvements over time. The four different structures, simple, functional, multidivisional, and matrix, are all suited to allow companies with different strategies to succeed but the company must decide which of these is correct for itself. A small start-up company will overburden itself with excessive cost if it seeks to implement a functional structure because it clearly will not have the talent on hand to create whole departments of HR employees or accountants. On the other hand, a company that grows to become a large multi-national

Organizational structures have changed greatly in the last fifty years. Whereas most organizations were once rigid and centralized, most organizations are now taking advantage of flexible and decentralized structures. These new structures have affected the standard relationships between employees and managers. Additional layers of management have been created which blur the lines between the functions of managers and the functions of employees. Employees have become decision makers, and some managers barely have any authoritative power. Subsequently, these changes to organizational structures have impacted organizational strategies. This too, expounds upon the increased power of the employee and the reduced authority of the manager. The changes in organizational strategies make use of the dispersion of power in order to reduce costs and enable additional safeguards within these organizations.

potential to generate $100 million in new business within two to three years, and were a key part of

Decentralization has several advantages. Staffs are encouraged to develop decision-making skills, which help them advance in their careers. The autonomy afforded by this style of operation also increases job satisfaction and motivation. For example, if maintenance staff receives a complaint on a fault by a customer, in a decentralized organization the maintenance staff has the power to fix the problem without getting the approval from the administration. If that same front maintenance staff determines that a customer has been

This structural form allows for an organization to be divided into various divisions where people with diverse skills are kept together in the form of groups that focus on particular customers or services. Each division has its own finance, health services, human resources and marketing staff. Each division has its own knowledge, abilities, expertise and resources required to function properly and handle tasks on its own. Changes in the environment do not affect the HCO. With a decentralized authority, departments under the divisional form are able to monitor themselves and adjust accordingly, and make faster

It did so in order to better focus its resources on changing customer needs as well as emphasize its strengths in the market place. The organizational structure now consists of centralized engineering and marketing organizations. This way the company has the ability to prevent product and resource overlaps and more effectively allocate its resources to areas yielding optimum profitability. The engineering side has eleven technology groups with people heading multiple groups and reporting to one person who then reports to the CEO. The marketing side has one head who reports to the CEO as well.

Organizational structure is a system used to define a hierarchy within an organization which improves operational efficiency by providing clarity to employees at all levels of a company. A systematically outlined structure can also provide direction for internal promotions, allowing companies to create employee advancement routes for entry-level workers. In other words, it identifies each job, its function and where it reports to within the organization. Harley-Davidson’s organizational structure, for example, assists centralized control of the business through the company’s arrangement of its components in terms of their interactions and functions. As one of the world’s oldest motorcycle manufacturers in the world, Harley-Davidson Inc. maintains this organizational structure and centers its current focus on a limited number of markets. While the business continues to grow by international expansion, Harley-Davidson’s corporate structure focuses mainly on the fact that most of the company’s revenues are generated in the United States. Thus, Harley-Davidson has a functional organizational structure that is based on the company’s current focus on the motorcycle markets in developed countries, especially the United States, in addition to ensuring centralized control of business activities. The basic characteristics of Harley-Davidson’s organizational structure include Function based groups, Centralization, and Global hierarchy.

A company will face a constant struggle to avoid the extremes of under-organizing and over-organizing. All service providers have a built-in tendency to get out of balance organizationally on one side or the other. In the under-organized company, its leaders struggle largely with efficiency: how to get things done. Due to inadequate

Other common terms for the idea of organizational decentralization include: team self-management, self-management, shared control, distributed leadership (Lambe, Webb, & Ishida, 2009) and holacracy (Robertson, 2007). While these terms may have small differences they all describe the common theme of distributing power across organizations. Several concepts help to explain why decentralization and the encouragement of teamwork throughout an organization are often superior to traditional management structure.

According to Miles et al. (1978, p. 547), an organization is both its purpose and the mechanism constructed to achieve the purpose. It means that the concept of organization is embracing both goals and all the elements that represent unique combination. Miles et al. (1978, p. 553) draws the conclusion that structure and the processes taking place inside the organization are closely aligned; it is hard to speak about one without mentioning the other. It is important to understand the conclusion drawn by Miles et al. (1978). It illustrates how the

Drivers for change come in two categories, internal and external. In the simulation, "Organization Structure", the pretence was that the stagnating system integration market, lead the CEO to

In a centralized organizational structure one individual is responsible for making all the decisions and maintains control of the company by giving direction. While Decentralized organizational structures often rely on several persons with the authority to make final decision for the company’s well being. Some benefits associated with a centralized organization are as follows: Reduction in cost in the work environment, having a focused vision on one common goal and Reduction in conflict. A Few drawbacks of a centralized organization include, No secrecy because all ideas and decisions are conveyed to all, No special attention and Delay in work. Advantages associated with Decentralization are; Huge relief is provided off the top managers, Greater use is made of employees skills and Decision making is left up to educational and well informed people.

The major problem every company encounters is the structure or hierarchy of the organization. Usually, it is in the form of a pyramid and gets narrower as it rises resulting in the few people on the top of the pyramid gets more advantages in the company. But the lower level employees are not given that importance when it comes to the utilization of the benefits provided by the company.

Rapid changes in the global economic market entail transformations affecting not only the external environment of organizations, but also its internal operations and processes (Hall, 2008; Hodgetts, 2002). One important change that has altered the nature of contemporary organization is the “acknowledgement, development and systematic use of the skills and knowledge of employees” (Ramirez et al 2007, p 496). The central role of employees’ participation in the success of the organization involves not only “high performance work systems… [but] they also involve the decentralization of decisions and work enrichment that is providing employees with opportunities for involvement in decision-making and innovation.” (Wood & de