flowchart TB
subgraph Tall [Tall structure — narrow span]
T1[CEO] --> T2[VP1] & T3[VP2]
T2 --> T4[M1] & T5[M2]
T3 --> T6[M3] & T7[M4]
end
subgraph Flat [Flat structure — wide span]
F1[CEO] --> F2[M1] & F3[M2] & F4[M3] & F5[M4] & F6[M5] & F7[M6]
end
style T1 fill:#FCE4EC,stroke:#AD1457
style F1 fill:#E8F5E9,stroke:#2E7D32
5 Organisation Structure and Design
5.1 Structure and Design — the Distinction
Organisation structure is the formal arrangement of jobs, authority and reporting relationships within an organisation. Organisation design is the active process of building that structure to fit the organisation’s strategy, environment, technology and people. Robbins and Coulter put it simply: “managers are designing or redesigning organisational structures” whenever they group jobs, define authority, set spans of control or decide how decisions will be made (robbins2018?).
| Block | The question it answers |
|---|---|
| Work specialisation | How finely is a job divided? |
| Departmentation | On what basis are jobs grouped? |
| Chain of command | Who reports to whom? |
| Span of control | How many subordinates per manager? |
| Centralisation / Decentralisation | Where are decisions made? |
| Formalisation | How rule-bound is the work? |
The first three are about who does what; the last three are about who decides.
5.2 The Building Blocks
5.2.1 Work specialisation
The division of work into smaller, repeatable tasks. Adam Smith’s pin factory and Frederick Taylor’s time-and-motion studies both rest on it. Specialisation raises efficiency up to a point, beyond which boredom and quality problems set in.
5.2.2 Departmentation
| Basis | Group jobs by | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functional | Function (production, marketing, finance) | Specialisation, economies of scale | Silos, slow cross-function response |
| Product / Divisional | Product line | Focus on product; clear P&L | Duplication of resources |
| Geographic | Region / territory | Local responsiveness | Coordination overhead |
| Customer | Customer type | Customer focus | Underused capacity if customers shrink |
| Process | Stage of work | Process efficiency | Limited to manufacturing-like flows |
| Matrix | Two bases together (typically function × project) | Flexibility, dual focus | Two bosses; conflict |
5.2.3 Chain of command and unity of command
The unbroken line of authority that links every position to the top. Fayol’s unity of command — one person, one boss — is its cornerstone. The matrix structure deliberately violates unity of command; the price is paid in coordination and conflict.
5.2.4 Span of control (Span of management)
How many subordinates a manager can effectively supervise. Narrow spans (4–6) build tall hierarchies with many levels; wide spans (10+) build flat organisations with fewer levels. The right span depends on task complexity, subordinate ability, geographic dispersion and supervisor skill.
V.A. Graicunas’s 1933 formula for the geometric explosion of relationships as subordinates are added — direct + cross + group relationships — was an early warning that wider spans add coordination cost faster than they add subordinates.
5.2.5 Centralisation vs Decentralisation
Centralisation concentrates decision-making at the top; decentralisation pushes it down. The choice depends on the size of the firm, the geographic spread, the rate of change in the environment, and the calibre of lower-level managers. Most large modern firms are decentralised on operating decisions and centralised on strategic and financial decisions.
5.2.6 Formalisation
How much is written down — job descriptions, procedures, rules. Highly formalised organisations are predictable but rigid; weakly formalised ones are flexible but inconsistent.
5.3 Mechanistic vs Organic Structures
Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker’s classic study (1961) of UK electronics firms produced one of the most-tested distinctions in the discipline (burnsstalker1961?).
| Feature | Mechanistic | Organic |
|---|---|---|
| Specialisation | High, rigid | Low, fluid |
| Hierarchy | Tall, clear | Flat, networked |
| Span | Narrow | Wide |
| Formalisation | High | Low |
| Decisions | Centralised | Decentralised |
| Communication | Vertical | Horizontal |
| Best fit | Stable environment, routine tasks | Turbulent environment, innovative tasks |
Mechanistic suits a stable environment; organic suits a changing one. The same firm may run different business units in different modes.
5.4 Common Forms of Structure
| Form | One-line description | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Line | Direct vertical authority — simplest form | Small firms |
| Line and Staff | Line authority for action; staff specialists for advice | Mid-size firms |
| Functional | Departments by function | Single product, stable environment |
| Divisional / SBU | Self-contained units by product, region or customer | Large multi-product firms |
| Matrix | Dual reporting (functional and project) | Complex projects with shifting priorities |
Modern variants include the team-based structure (cross-functional teams as the basic unit), the boundaryless organisation (Welch’s GE — minimal vertical and horizontal barriers), the virtual organisation (small core, much outsourced), and the network organisation (cluster of cooperating firms).
5.5 Mintzberg’s Five Configurations
Henry Mintzberg’s The Structuring of Organizations (1979) is the most influential framework at the postgraduate level (mintzberg1979?).
5.5.1 Five basic parts
Every organisation has five parts that pull on its design.
| Part | Who is in it | What they do |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic apex | Top managers | Set direction, manage relationships |
| Middle line | Middle managers | Connect apex to operating core |
| Operating core | Front-line workers | Produce the goods or services |
| Technostructure | Analysts, planners | Standardise work, output and skills |
| Support staff | HR, legal, mailroom | Provide indirect services |
5.5.2 Five configurations
Each configuration is dominated by one part and one coordinating mechanism.
| Configuration | Dominant part | Key mechanism | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simple Structure | Strategic apex | Direct supervision | Owner-managed start-up |
| Machine Bureaucracy | Technostructure | Standardisation of work | Mass-production factory, post office |
| Professional Bureaucracy | Operating core | Standardisation of skills | Hospital, university |
| Divisionalised Form | Middle line | Standardisation of outputs | Multinational with SBUs |
| Adhocracy | Support staff (with operating core) | Mutual adjustment | R&D consultancy, film production |
A sixth — the Missionary organisation, dominated by ideology — was added in later editions, where the coordinating mechanism is standardisation of norms.
5.6 Lawrence and Lorsch — Differentiation and Integration
Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch’s contingency study of the plastics, food and container industries (1967) showed that successful firms differentiate their sub-units to match each unit’s environment, then invest in integrating mechanisms to keep the differentiated parts working together (lawrencelorsch1967?). The greater the differentiation, the more elaborate the integration.
5.7 Determinants of Structural Choice
Five contingency factors shape the right design. The standard contingency proposition: the right structure is the one that fits all five.
| Determinant | What it implies | Anchor study |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy | Structure follows strategy | Chandler (1962) |
| Size | Larger firms tend to be more bureaucratic | Aston group (Pugh et al.) |
| Technology | Routine technology → mechanistic; non-routine → organic | Joan Woodward (1965); Charles Perrow |
| Environment | Stable → mechanistic; turbulent → organic | Burns & Stalker; Lawrence & Lorsch |
| People (HR) | Skilled, professional workforce → flatter, organic | OB literature |
Alfred Chandler’s Strategy and Structure (1962) is the source of the famous proposition “structure follows strategy” — that diversifying firms moved from functional to divisional structures because the new strategy required it (chandler1962?).
5.9 Practice Questions
Which of the following is not one of the six building blocks of organisation design listed by Robbins?
View solution
A narrow span of control typically produces:
View solution
Match Burns and Stalker's typology with its features:
| (i) | Mechanistic | (a) | Decentralised, fluid, horizontal communication |
| (ii) | Organic | (b) | Centralised, formal, vertical communication |
View solution
Match Mintzberg's configuration with its dominant coordinating mechanism:
| (i) | Simple structure | (a) | Standardisation of skills |
| (ii) | Machine bureaucracy | (b) | Direct supervision |
| (iii) | Professional bureaucracy | (c) | Mutual adjustment |
| (iv) | Adhocracy | (d) | Standardisation of work |
View solution
"Structure follows strategy" is the proposition associated with:
View solution
A matrix structure is most distinctive because it:
View solution
Lawrence and Lorsch's contingency study introduced the twin concepts of:
View solution
A consulting firm working on shifting client projects with cross-functional teams and minimal formalisation is best described, in Mintzberg's terms, as:
View solution
- Six building blocks (Robbins): Work specialisation, Departmentation, Chain of command, Span of control, Centralisation, Formalisation.
- Burns & Stalker: Mechanistic (stable env, formal, centralised) vs Organic (turbulent env, fluid, decentralised).
- Mintzberg’s five parts: strategic apex, middle line, operating core, technostructure, support staff.
- Mintzberg’s five configurations: Simple → direct supervision; Machine bureaucracy → standardisation of work; Professional bureaucracy → standardisation of skills; Divisionalised → standardisation of outputs; Adhocracy → mutual adjustment.
- Determinants of structure: Strategy (Chandler), Size (Aston), Technology (Woodward, Perrow), Environment (Burns & Stalker; Lawrence & Lorsch), People.
- Authority is delegated; responsibility is not. Authority + Responsibility + Accountability = the triad.
- Narrow span → tall; wide span → flat. Matrix → dual reporting.