Organizational Architecture and Organizational Culture
Relationship between organizational architecture and organizational culture
Organizational structure and organizational culture represent two elements of organizational operations but with an interdependent relationship. In the business environment, organizational structure influences the ethics, dispositions, attitudes and behaviors that shape up the culture of the workplace. If the organizational architecture of a company is significantly characterized by hierarchical features, and decision-making process that is highly impacted by a centralized management, organizational culture is greatly influenced by the lower levels that are non autonomous and lack freedom. On the other hand, if the organizational structure is highly decentralized, there are features of shared authority and power at all the levels. This kind of an organization is characterized by all levels that experience a greater extent of freedom, accountability and independence (Jones, 2010).
The organization that is relevant in the analysis of the relationship between organizational architecture and organizational culture is Google. The management at the company has given a considerable amount of freedom and autonomy to its employees especially those in the engineering and design divisions. This has critically ensured the accountability of workers. Google has implemented a policy that gives workers the opportunity to take part in non-work related activities to pursue their own interests. This has seen the invention of such products and utilities like Google Ads, Google Chrome and Gmail. This implies that workers are given the chance of making decisions that have proved to be important for the achievements of the organization. It should also be noted that this relationship is a reflection of the innovation aspect of the firm (Brickley et al, 2009).
The Problem with Billy Riggan
Always Round Tire has initiated an organizational architecture that is highly characterized by hierarchical features. This has created a problem whereby key decisions are the only roles of Billy Riggan. The position of Riggan in the company has been identified as the centre of decision making. This has resulted into an issue whereby he is expected to be the one charged with making key decisions aimed at enhancing the performance of the company. This is a responsibility that is quite demanding for one person. From the other perspective, the other research scientists do not have the opportunity of making contributions to the firm’s decision making processes (Zheng et al, 2010).
The hitch with this situation is that Riggan feels that he is being overworked, and this is reflected on the overall performance of the company. Dissatisfied employees have been found to be redundant in the place of work. This has in turn impacted a weaker edge in terms of the company’s innovation strength. For instance, it has been established that workers who feel overused are likely to greatly reduce their performance. This could eventually impact disaster on the organization since over reliance on the employees may negatively affect the firm. For example, other research scientists could feel that they are not required in the company and could end up engaging in other activities. Besides, there is also the lack of motivation on the entire labor force (Christensen et al, 2010).
Problems of Seniority-Based Promotion
The promotion of employees based on their seniority has been identified as having its merits and demerits. However, in many companies, promotions that are awarded according seniority have been faced with complications related to high level positions in an organization. Although seniority-based promotions have been found to eliminate the possibility of favoritism, the top managers may find it challenging when it comes to the effective management of the company at high levels. This confirms the fact that seniority does not help in making sure that the individuals have better skills in management (Khanna et al, 2011).
For a company to make sure that it acquires the best senior managers, promotion should be awarded based on merit and seniority. This will have an impact of motivation to the workers and enable them to be more productive instead of promotions based on seniority whereby the employees are aware that they will be promoted in the future. This has been noted to ensure that workers are not motivated towards incorporating innovativeness in the place of work, and this might result into a situation whereby the firm’s performance is declining or staggering. Such kinds of workers will not make better managers in the event that they earn promotions since they lack the skills required for a good manager and leader. This will also be reflected on the performance of the entire company (Qayyum, 2012).
Problem of Free Riders
In every team, there are always team riders and people who are actively involved in the solving of problems, a role that is supposed to be played by the team. Free riders have been the cause of problems in many organizations, and this has ensured that there are people who benefit from the efforts of others. Many firms have been recognized to be rewarding the entire teams and not individuals. However, the inputs of different team members have always been characterized by significant discrepancies. This is a situation whereby some team members make more contributions compared to others. However, the management tends to reward the entire team on equal measures (Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010).
This has been established to have serious problems in team as well as individual workers’ motivations. Workers are well aware that no matter how small their contribution is, they will be rewarded in the same way that the others are. There is also the problem linked to individuals not committing themselves towards making contributions to the organization. This shows that the company will have teams that lack motivation since they are eligible for reward and recognition despite not having significant impact on solution of problems and design of products. This is an implication that firms will need to create and implement policies that will discourage free riders. This will be attained by making sure that individuals are rewarded for their efforts and not the entire team (Maiden & Perry, 2011).
Problems Associated with 360-Degree Performance Evaluation
Many firms have notably been found to embrace the 360-Degree performance evaluation method. This type of performance evaluation is based on employee feedback. There are various complications that are associated with this kind of performance evaluation. One of the problems is that the organization may fail to realize the improvement of performance. This can be attributed to the fact that many organizations lack a cause-and-effect data showing that this evaluation process enhances managerial effectiveness, decreases grievances, and enhances employee retention and productivity (Oh & Berry, 2009).
It is also critical to bear in mind that the 360-degree performance evaluation method has been established to emphasize on soft goals, thereby hindering the analysis of the impact and success of the business. Besides, it also limits other modes of communication. Companies that have been found to be over reliant on this method of evaluation have been faced with problems linked to managers using other valuable communication mechanisms. There is also the fact that external factors may impact the scores of the evaluation. This can be attributed to the actuality that satisfaction and morale of employees is heavily influenced by outside factors. The 360-degree model does not account for the external factors, like family crisis, financial challenges, and living problems (Heidemeier & Moser, 2009).
Relevance of Responsible Stewardship
Responsible stewardship by organizations can have numerous benefits. Closely related to the concept of corporate social responsibility, companies that practice responsible stewardship have been found to enjoy lost of benefits. Such organizations have been able to increase their profit margins and accelerate their growth. Organizations like Unilever have been able to not only champion sustainable business practices but also implement Sustainable Living Plan, which have positively impacted the organization’s performance (Waters, 2011).
Responsible stewardship has a positive impact on the organizational architecture. This can be because of the fact that this avenue enables individuals to make independent decisions that are achieved through ethical considerations and innovative products that are sustainable. Organizations extend the responsibility of workers on the development and design of products that will encourage customers to come back for more. This can significantly enhance the satisfaction of customers. It is also important to note that responsible stewardship has influential impacts on the reputation of a company. This ascertains that the organization is viewed as having a positive contribution to the environment and society (Maon et al, 2010).
Are you in need of a high quality paper on Organizational Architecture and Organizational Culture? Take it easy! At PremiumEssays.net we guarantee our clients affordable and quality services on 24/7 basis.
Brickley, J. A., Smith, C. W., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2009). Managerial economics and organizational architecture. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Christensen, L. T., Cheney, G., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S. (2010). Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices. Waveland Press.
Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Khanna, T., Song, J., & Lee, K. (2011). The paradox of Samsung’s rise. Harvard Business Review, 89(7-8), 2301-2306.
Maiden, B., & Perry, B. (2011). Dealing with free‐riders in assessed group work: results from a study at a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(4), 451-464.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages and cultural phases: a critical review and a consolidative model of corporate social responsibility development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 20-38.
Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498.
Qayyum, A. (2012). An Empirical Analysis of Employee Motivation and the Role of Demographics: the Banking Industry of Pakistan. Global Business & Management Research, 4(1).
Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding & overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57.
Waters, R. D. (2011). Redefining sewardship: Examining how Fortune 100 organizations use stewardship with virtual stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 37(2), 129-136.
Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 763-771.