IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP IN LARGE ORGANISATION
- Format: Ms Word Document
- Pages: 81
- Price: N 3,000
- Chapters: 1-5
- Get the Complete Project
The research profers an assessment of the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization. It analyses organization structure its functions and significance .The research projects organization structure as a unifying factor enhancing interpersonal relationship in large organization towards to the accomplishment of the aims and objective of the organization.
Organizational structure defines how individuals and groups are organized or how their tasks are divided and coordinated (Mintzberg, 1983). In this changing world, companies have had to learn how to formulate and implement their strategies through projects and organizational structures in order to successfully face threats and opportunities. However, the management of multiple projects is not easy due to its complexity.
Theories on organizational structures started with the identification of organizing as a distinct managerial function. They took formal shapes upon results from studies on organizational structures which covered many widely different industries. They included studies on the manufacturing industry by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), administrative organization by Balu and Schoenherr (1980), investment banks by Eccles and Crane (1988) and multi-national organization (Ghoshal and Nohoria, 1989). With the emergence of the systems and contingency theories, the importance of the organizational structure as a critical component of a formal organization had finally gained position in research.
In a research on the organization structures in six enterprises, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) summarized the features of the organization structure to be the span of control, number of levels to a shared superior, time span of review of departmental performance, specificity of review of departmental performance and importance of formal rules. Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) defined the organizational structure in terms of specification, standardization, discretion and personnel expertise. They agreed with Lawrence and Lorsh on the feature of specialization. Mintzberg (1989) studied seven types of organizations, namely, entrepreneurial, machine, professional, diversified, innovative, missionary and political. He found them to be based on key parts of the organization, type of decentralization and their coordinating mechanism. Applied research on organizational structures in organizational companies, developed further when many researchers applied basic research results on organizational theory in other fields. Lansley (1994) indicated that strong linkage existed among different organizational models and advocated using them for the reconciliation of conflicts. Mukalula (1996) studied three aspects of a organization firm’s structure: namely, organizational complexity, formalization, centralization and decentralization of authority. Sunkuk (1997) adopted five among the seven types of organizations presented by Mintzberg (1989) to examine which managerial environment will best reflect that of the organization. Applied research extended the study of organizations beyond organizational features to relationships with the operating environment.
Among the basic and applied research studies, there is agreement on the following:
• The structure of an organization is important to the performance of the organization. This would mean that the project management team’s structure would certainly affect its performance. Two basic features of a structure of an organization are its width as indicated by spans of control, and its height as indicated by the levels of decentralization. Mintzberg (1983) defines the organizational structure as; “…the sum of total in which its labour is divided into distinct tasks and then its coordination is achieved among these tasks.” There is no such thing as a best organizational structure. One needs to carefully consider the reason for why the organization is there and Mintzberg (1983) means that the structure should be selected to achieve an internal harmony, as well as alignment with the organization’s situation (Hatch, 2006; Mintzberg, 1983).
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The establishment of management structures for the management of a project is one of the important activities required for accomplishing goals. Shaker (2003) in a publication reviewing Peter Druckerbooks, who argues that management is the function, which involves getting things done through other people. Basically this involves the following, which are all aspects of setting organization matters for performance: Getting Managers with leadership capabilities, Getting staff with competence and appropriate skills, Placing responsibilities on people for successful completion of the project, Establishing clear delegated authorities Defining proper communication lines. Since these outlined duties relate to the matters concerned with internal organizational running, it may be argued that they are solely for the purpose of improving only organizational performance. Kotnour (2000) asserts that some of the internal organizational matters such as organizational learning practices increase project success too. The tendency to have the project success increased therefore lies in the ability of the manager to develop certain strategies within the organization. The research intends to investigate the impact of organizational structure on inter personal relationship in large organization
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The problem confronting the research is an assessment of the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization.
The research intends to analyze organizational structure and determine its functionality to enhance interpersonal relationship in large organization.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION
1 What constitute the nature of organization structure?
2 What are the types and functionality?
3 What is the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization?
1.4 OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH
1 TO determine the nature of organization structure
2 To appraise the types and functionality
3 To determine the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The research shall project organization structure as a unifying factor in enhancing interpersonal Relationship in large organization towards the realization of organizational aims and objective.
1.6 STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
1 H0 Organizational structure is not significant in large organization
H1 organizational structure is significant in large organization
1 H0 The level of interpersonal relationship in large organization is low
H1 The level of interpersonal relationship in large organization is high
2 H0 The impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization is low
H1 The impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization is high
1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The research profers an assessment of the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Mintzberg (1983) defines the organizational structure as; “…the sum of total in which its labour is divided into distinct tasks and then its coordination is achieved among these tasks.” There is no such thing as a best organizational structure. One needs to carefully consider the reason for why the organization is there and Mintzberg (1983) means that the structure should be selected to achieve an internal harmony, as well as alignment with the organization’s situation (Hatch, 2006; Mintzberg, 1983).
Formalization is defined as the emphasis placed on following rules and procedures when performing one’s job (cf. Pugh et al. 1968).
Formalization reduces confusion because staff know what they are expected to do during product development and this helps coordinate effort, and facilitate productive exchanges between managers (Thompson 1967). Further, formalization establishes managers’ role expectations and expected information flows from their counterparts on product development projects (Moenaert and Souder 1990a).