trailer of my new short film"Anna "

im unit 2 notes

MS-unit-2

An organization is a social arrangement which pursues collective goals, controls its own performance, and has a boundary separating it from its environment. The word itself is derived from the Greek word organon meaning tool.

In the social sciences, organizations are studied by researchers from several disciplines, the most common of which are sociology,economics, political science, psychology, management, and organizational communication. The broad area is commonly referred to asorganizational studies, organizational behavior or organization analysis. Therefore, a number of different theories and perspectives exist, some of which are compatible,

• Organization – process-related: an entity is being (re-)organized (organization as task or action).
• Organization – functional: organization as a function of how entities like businesses or state authorities are used (organization as a permanent structure).
• Organization – institutional: an entity is an organization (organization as an actual purposeful structure within a social context)

 

Organizational structure

An organizational structure is a mainly hierarchical concept of subordination of entities that collaborate and contribute to serve one common aim.

Organizations are a variant of clustered entities. An organization can be structured in many different ways and styles, depending on their objectives and ambiance. The structure of an organization will determine the modes in which it operates and performs.

Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities for different functions and processes to different entities such as thebranch, department, workgroup and individual. Individuals in an organizational structure are normally hired under time-limited work contracts orwork orders, or under permanent employment contracts or program orders.

Operational organizations and informal organizations

The set organizational structure may not coincide with facts, evolving in operational action. Such divergence decreases performance, when growing. E.g. a wrong organizational structure may hamper cooperation and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of resources and budgets. Organizational structures shall be adaptive to process requirements, aiming to optimize the ratio of effort and input to output.

An effective organizational structure shall facilitate working relationships between various entities in the organization and may improve the working efficiency within the organizational units. Organization shall retain a set order and control to enable monitoring the processes. Organization shall support command for coping with a mix of orders and a change of conditions while performing work. Organization shall allow for application of individual skills to enable high flexibility and apply creativity. When a business expands, the chain of command will lengthen and the spans of control will widen. When an organization comes to age, the flexibility will decrease and the creativity will fatigue. Therefore organizational structures shall be altered from time to time to enable recovery. If such alteration is prevented internally, the final escape is to turn down the organization to prepare for a re-launch in an entirely new set up.

Success factors

Common success criteria for organizational structures are:

• Decentralized reporting
• Flat hierarchy
• High transient speed
• High transparency
• Low residual mass
• Permanent monitoring
• Rapid response
• Shared reliability
• Matrix hierarchy

History

Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical power structures to industrial structures and today's post-industrial structures.

Organizational structure types

Pre-bureaucratic structures

Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. The structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new (entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development.

They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority.

Bureaucratic structures

Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of standardization. They are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations. They usually adopt a tall structure. Then tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in Burns and Stalker distinction between mechanistic and organic structures.

Post-bureaucratic

The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific. In the generic sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with Weber's ideal type bureaucracy. This may include total quality management, culture management and matrix management, amongst others. None of these however has left behind the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber's rational, legal type, and the organization is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned up bureaucracies , rather than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon Kunda, in his classic study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of bureaucratic control - the formalisation, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations - does not change in principle.....it shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization's culture'.

Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization., provide a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision making rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision making by consensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a non-profit or community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who normally experience oppression in groups.

Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity theory and organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can be used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner et al. (2000) studied how simple structures could be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes links to simple structures and improviseal learning. Other scholars such as Jan Rivkin and Sigglekow, and Nelson Repenning  revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.

Functional structure

Employees within the functional divisions of an organization tend to perform a specialized set of tasks, for instance the engineering department would be staffed only with engineers. This leads to operational efficiencies within that group. However it could also lead to a lack of communication between the functional groups within an organization, making the organization slow and inflexible.

As a whole, a functional organization is best suited as a producer of standardized goods and services at large volume and low cost. Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional structure, which makes producing a limited amount of products or services efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiencies can further be realized as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and distributed quickly and at low cost . For instance, a small business could start making the components it requires for production of its products instead of procuring it from an external organization.But not only beneficial for organization but also for employees faiths.

Divisional structure

Also called a "product structure", the divisional structure groups each organizational function into a divisions. Each division within a divisional structure contains all the necessary resources and functions within it. Divisions can be categorized from different points of view. There can be made a distinction on geograpical basis (an US division and an EU division) or on product/service basis (different products for different customers: households or companies). Another example, an automobile company with a divisional structure might have one division for SUVs, another division for subcompact cars, and another division for sedans. Each division would have its own sales, engineering and marketing departments.

Matrix structure

The matrix structure groups employees by both function and product. This structure can combine the best of both separate structures. A matrix organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in order to take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and decentralized forms. An example would be a company that produces two products, "product a" and "product b". Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within the company as follows: "product a" sales department, "product a" customer service department, "product a" accounting, "product b" sales department, "product b" customer service department, "product b" accounting department. Matrix structure is amongst the purest of organizational structures, a simple lattice emulating order and regularity demonstrated in nature.

Weak/Functional Matrix: A project manager with only limited authority is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the project. The functional managers maintain control over their resources and project areas.

Balanced/Functional Matrix: A project manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project manager and the functional managers. It brings the best aspects of functional and projectized organizations. However, this is the most difficult system to maintain as the sharing power is delicate proposition.

Strong/Project Matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and assign resources as needed.

Among these matrixes, there is no best format; implementation success always depends on organization's purpose and function.

Organizational circle: moving back to flat

The flat structure is common in entrepreneurial start-ups, university spin offs or small companies in general. As the company grows, however, it becomes more complex and hierarchical, which leads to an expanded structure, with more levels and departments.

Often, it would result in bureaucracy, the most prevalent structure in the past. It is still, however, relevant in former Soviet Republics and China, as well as in most governmental organizations all over the world. Shell Group used to represent the typical bureaucracy: top-heavy and hierarchical. It featured multiple levels of command and duplicate service companies existing in different regions. All this made Shell apprehensive to market changes , leading to its incapacity to grow and develop further. The failure of this structure became the main reason for the company restructuring into a matrix.

Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully developed the matrix structure supporting their focused strategy. Its design combines functional and product based divisions, with employees reporting to two heads . Creating a team spirit, the company empowers employees to make their own decisions and train them to develop both hard and soft skills. That makes Starbucks one of the best at customer service.

Some experts also mention the multinational design , common in global companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This structure can be seen as a complex form of the matrix, as it maintains coordination among products, functions and geographic areas.

In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that through the forces of globalization, competition and more demanding customers, the structure of many companies has become flatter, less hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.

Team

One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is team. In small businesses, the team structure can define the entire organization . Teams can be both horizontal and vertical. While an organization is constituted as a set of people who synergies individual competencies to achieve newer dimensions, the quality of organizational structure revolves around the competencies of teams in totality. For example, every one of the Whole Foods Market stores, the largest natural-foods grocer in the US developing a focused strategy, is an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-managed teams, while team leaders in each store and each region are also a team. Larger bureaucratic organizations can benefit from the flexibility of teams as well. Xerox, Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that actively use teams to perform tasks.

Network

Another modern structure is network. While business giants risk becoming too clumsy to proact (such as), act and react efficiently , the new network organizations contract out any business function, that can be done better or more cheaply. In essence, managers in network structures spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external relations, usually by electronic means. H&M is outsourcing its clothing to a network of 700 suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are based in low-cost Asian countries. Not owning any factories, H&M can be more flexible than many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with its low-cost strategy. The potential management opportunities offered by recent advances in complex networks theory have been demonstrated including applications to product design and development, and innovation problem in markets and industries .

Boundaryless structure

The most radical concept in today's organizational design is the concept of boundarylessness, which seeks to overcome traditional boundaries between layers of management (vertical), functional areas (horizontal), as well as geographic boundaries. Some claim the boundaryless structure is a combination of team and network structures, with the addition of temporariness . Ikea, the world's largest furniture manufacture, has been successful in implementing the boundaryless structure.The company works closely with suppliers by providing technical assistance, leasing them equipment, and giving advice. It also refined the role of the customer, putting responsibility on them to cart the furniture home and assemble it themselves. As a result, the company can offer lower prices , which supports its low-cost focused strategy.

Virtual

A special form of boundaryless organization is virtual. It works in a network of external alliances, using the Internet. This means while the core of the organization can be small but still the company can operate globally be a market leader in its niche. According to Anderson, because of the unlimited shelf space of the Web, the cost of reaching niche goods is falling dramatically. Although none sell in huge numbers, there are so many niche products that collectively they make a significant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful.

Mechanistic and Organismic Organisations

Tom Burns, a sociologist, teamed up with G. M. Stalker, a psychologist, to look at the impact of technical innovation on organizations in the 1960s. The question was how a traditional firm in Scotland, moved into electronics in order to have a future and was therefore moving from a position of (diminishing) stability to one of fast moving change. The findings were pessimistic in that they doubted whether traditional structures could incorporate fast moving change. They could not attract electronics research and development engineers into their organizations.

This is because the individual in a traditional pyramidal organization is not simply committed to the company. There is the group or department with a stable career structure. Its sectional interests can be in conflict with other groups' interests. If something new comes into the firm, these establish sections compete for control over the added functions and resources.

This is against the company as a whole, inefficient, and adaptations which do take place accentuate the problem. These are pathological systems.

There are three typical pathological system responses:

Vertical referral

To the appropriate specialist if there is one with sufficient authority To a superior The superior puts fast changing events up the hierarchy Much goes to the chief executive The chief executive is overloaded The chief executive delegates to selected people producing an unofficial hierarchy Senior managers in the formal system feel bypassed People learn the unofficial hierarchy and its seeming preferences.

Bureaucratic addition

Additional departments are created Contract managers are added Liaison officers operate The bureacracy tries to keep its hierarchy and yet works every which way Decisions shoot up and around the system and responsibilities get confused leading to several conflicting decisions As change continues, the jungle of acquired responsibilities thinkens This is called the mechanistic Jungle

Committee System

Committees are developed with special responsibility The hierarchical system is left untouched Committees can increase in number and responsibility with fast change Committees rarely becomes several minds working as one with good results It is not a long term managerial solution In the end the formal system that was is shown to be inadequate As in government it smacks of kicking into long grass It smacks of inefficient government administration

In an organisation three social systems are involved:

Formal authority system

This is overt, providing the language of change It is based on the aims of the organisation It is based on its technology It is about relating to the business environment

Preferment systems of people (Burns: Co-operative Systems)

This is about career aspirations and career structures This is about competition for promotion. Intentions are to have a bigger impact on decisions and directions This is an area people really think about: their status in the organisation. They promote this by using the formal authority system because, of course, decisions in the formal system impact on the career structure. If they can achieve power then all to the good (for themselves)

Political system

This is about competing and cooperating for power. It is about effective ways and means to achieve preferment in the second authority system The language of politicking is the first formal authority system So this is the means to an end. The end can be (in many a hierarchy) no more than the status given to a position, and for those decisions to be carried through. And end may be real decisions and real impact as individuals climb up the greasy pole.

Burns and Stalker have an alternative and this is the organismic or Organic form of management (and called Systemic). Gone are the formal roles and specialisms based on assigned, precisely defined, tasks. Gone is the idea that overall knowledge and co-ordination is found only at the top of the hierarchy.

In organismic management a continual adjustment and flexibility in individual tasks is emphasised. Knowledge is collaborative rather than restricted into specialisms. Communication is horizontal, vertical and diagonal as required by the types of work involved. An organisational chart would depend on which job is being done and what process it involves, and it may not last long. Everyone should consult and consider the overall aims of the company as the situation keeps changing. Technical additions and fast change means that experts are needed. Experts may know more than many managers. Expert career structures go beyond the organisation (just as do top executives) and may be based on individual reputations. The politicking then is more diffuse. The power system leaks out at many levels.

There are a number of sociological analyses here. One is the Weberian ideal types of mechanistic and organismic organisations. So they are not actual expected organisations but tendencies for analysis. The mechanistic relates to Weber also on bureaucracy and its rational-legal authority. This seemed to be the depressing summit of capitalist organisation. However, they have shown it needs stability. Without any reference to human fulfilment, they have argued for a need for a more human and responsive type of institution. So there is more than a hint of the Parsonian sociology of functional systems with adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern maintenance (Haralambos, Holborn, 1995, 873), with manifest and latent functions - actually, motivations - in terms of people using the manifest language of the overt system of formal control while operating latently with other motivations (Merton, 1949, in Coser, Rosenberg, 1976, 528). One organisation then adapts successfully to a stable system, and one to a changing system.

There is also history. A firm has to know its past and reveal to itself the three systems of motivation. The mechanistic organisation defends itself through its people in positions of power, career climbing and purposive decision taking. It takes a huge change to become organismic if it can be done. Because of the use of sociological categories, the mechanistic and the organismic can be applied elsewhere. I applied it to historical and broad Christian Churches. Heterodox liberal Christians inside these organisations were organismic (or systemic) in authority, because they took it upon themselves to be the experts and specialists of theology in their very diverse writings. Those heterodox who left to join specialist liberal denominations pursued instead human relations authority, because they were essentially re-creators of open gatherings that discussed truth. Orthodox liberal Christians are bureaucrats and compromisers, unable to hold together a Church that is spiralling away into its new denominational constituents, each with their own types of authority, namely the charismatic, traditional and systemic.

Line organization is the most oldest and simplest method of administrative organization. According to this type of organization, the authority flows from top to bottom in a concern. The line of command is carried out from top to bottom. This is the reason for calling this organization as scalar organization which means scalar chain of command is a part and parcel of this type of administrative organization. In this type of organization, the line of command flows on an even basis without any gaps in communication and co- ordination taking place.

Features of Line Organization

1. It is the most simplest form of organization.
2. Line of authority flows from top to bottom.
3. Specialized and supportive services do not take place in these organization.
4. Unified control by the line officers can be maintained since they can independently take decisions in their areas and spheres.
5. This kind of organization always helps in bringing efficiency in communication and bringing stability to a concern.

Merits of Line Organization

1. Simplest- It is the most simple and oldest method of administration.
2. Unity of Command- In these organizations, superior-subordinate relationship is maintained and scalar chain of command flows from top to bottom.
3. Better discipline- The control is unified and concentrates on one person and therefore, he can independently make decisions of his own. Unified control ensures better discipline.
4. Fixed responsibility- In this type of organization, every line executive has got fixed authority, power and fixed responsibility attached to every authority.
5. Flexibility- There is a co-ordination between the top most authority and bottom line authority. Since the authority relationships are clear, line officials are independent and can flexibly take the decision. This flexibility gives satisfaction of line executives.
6. Prompt decision- Due to the factors of fixed responsibility and unity of command, the officials can take prompt decision.

Demerits of Line Organization

1. Over reliance- The line executive’s decisions are implemented to the bottom. This results in over-relying on the line officials.
2. Lack of specialization- A line organization flows in a scalar chain from top to bottom and there is no scope for specialized functions. For example, expert advices whatever decisions are taken by line managers are implemented in the same way.
3. Inadequate communication- The policies and strategies which are framed by the top authority are carried out in the same way. This leaves no scope for communication from the other end. The complaints and suggestions of lower authority are not communicated back to the top authority. So there is one way communication.
4. Lack of Co-ordination- Whatever decisions are taken by the line officials, in certain situations wrong decisions, are carried down and implemented in the same way. Therefore, the degree of effective co- ordination is less.
5. Authority leadership- The line officials have tendency to misuse their authority positions. This leads to autocratic leadership and monopoly in the concern.

Line and Staff Organization

Line and staff organization is a modification of line organization and it is more complex than line organization. According to this administrative organization, specialized and supportive activities are attached to the line of command by appointing staff supervisors and staff specialists who are attached to the line authority. The power of command always remains with the line executives and staff supervisors guide, advice and council the line executives. Personal Secretary to the Managing Director is a staff official.

MANAGING DIRECTOR
↓	↓	↓
Production Manager	Marketing Manager	Finance Manager
↓	↓	↓
Plant Supervisor	Market Supervisor	Chief Assisstant
↓	↓	↓
Foreman	Salesman	Accountant

Features of Line and Staff Organization

1. There are two types of staff :
1. Staff Assistants- P.A. to Managing Director, Secretary to Marketing Manager.
2. Staff Supervisor- Operation Control Manager, Quality Controller, PRO
2. Line and Staff Organization is a compromise of line organization. It is more complex than line concern.
3. Division of work and specialization takes place in line and staff organization.
4. The whole organization is divided into different functional areas to which staff specialists are attached.
5. Efficiency can be achieved through the features of specialization.
6. There are two lines of authority which flow at one time in a concern :
1. Line Authority
2. Staff Authority
7. Power of command remains with the line executive and staff serves only as counselors.

Merits of Line and Staff Organization

1. Relief to line of executives- In a line and staff organization, the advice and counseling which is provided to the line executives divides the work between the two.The line executive can concentrate on the execution of plans and they get relieved of dividing their attention to many areas.
2. Expert advice- The line and staff organization facilitates expert advice to the line executive at the time of need. The planning and investigation which is related to different matters can be done by the staff specialist and line officers can concentrate on execution of plans.
3. Benefit of Specialization- Line and staff through division of whole concern into two types of authority divides the enterprise into parts and functional areas. This way every officer or official can concentrate in its own area.
4. Better co-ordination- Line and staff organization through specialization is able to provide better decision making and concentration remains in few hands. This feature helps in bringing co- ordination in work as every official is concentrating in their own area.
5. Benefits of Research and Development- Through the advice of specialized staff, the line executives, the line executives get time to execute plans by taking productive decisions which are helpful for a concern. This gives a wide scope to the line executive to bring innovations and go for research work in those areas. This is possible due to the presence of staff specialists.
6. Training- Due to the presence of staff specialists and their expert advice serves as ground for training to line officials. Line executives can give due concentration to their decision making. This in itself is a training ground for them.
7. Balanced decisions- The factor of specialization which is achieved by line staff helps in bringing co- ordination. This relationship automatically ends up the line official to take better and balanced decision.
8. Unity of action- Unity of action is a result of unified control. Control and its effectivity take place when co- ordination is present in the concern. In the line and staff authority all the officials have got independence to make decisions. This serves as effective control in the whole enterprise.

Demerits of Line and Staff Organization

1. Lack of understanding- In a line and staff organization, there are two authority flowing at one time. This results in the confusion between the two. As a result, the workers are not able to understand as to who is their commanding authority. Hence the problem of understanding can be a hurdle in effective running.
2. Lack of sound advice- The line official get used to the expertise advice of the staff. At times the staff specialist also provide wrong decisions which the line executive have to consider. This can affect the efficient running of the enterprise.
3. Line and staff conflicts- Line and staff are two authorities which are flowing at the same time. The factors of designations, status influence sentiments which are related to their relation, can pose a distress on the minds of the employees. This leads to minimizing of co- ordination which hampers a concern’s working.
4. Costly- In line and staff concern, the concerns have to maintain the high remuneration of staff specialist. This proves to be costly for a concern with limited finance.
5. Assumption of authority- The power of concern is with the line official but the staff dislikes it as they are the one more in mental work.
6. Staff steals the show- In a line and staff concern, the higher returns are considered to be a product of staff advice and counseling. The line officials feel dissatisfied and a feeling of distress enters a concern. The satisfaction of line officials is very important for effective results.

Basic Committee Organization

Matrix management

Matrix Management is a type of organizational management in which people with similar skills are pooled for work assignments. For example, all engineers may be in one engineering department and report to an engineering manager, but these same engineers may be assigned to different projects and report to a project manager while working on that project. Therefore, each engineer may have to work under several managers to get their job done.

The Matrix

Some organizations fall somewhere between the fully functional and pure matrix. These organizations are defined in the Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) 4th Edition as composite. For example, even a fundamentally functional or matrix organization may create a special project team to handle a critical project.

Organization in sociology

In sociology "organization" is understood as planned, coordinated and purposeful action of human beings to construct or compile a common tangible or intangible product. This action is usually framed by formal membership and form (institutional rules). Sociology distinguishes the term organization into planned formal and unplanned informal (i.e. spontaneously formed) organizations. Sociology analyzes organizations in the first line from an institutional perspective. In this sense, organization is a permanent arrangement of elements. These elements and their actions are determined by rules so that a certain task can be fulfilled through a system of coordinateddivision of labor.

An organization is defined by the elements that are part of it (who belongs to the organization and who does not?), its communication(which elements communicate and how do they communicate?), its autonomy (Max Weber termed autonomy in this context:Autocephaly)(which changes are executed autonomously by the organization or its elements?), and its rules of action compared to outside events (what causes an organization to act as a collective actor?).

By coordinated and planned cooperation of the elements, the organization is able to solve tasks that lie beyond the abilities of the single elements. The price paid by the elements is the limitation of the degrees of freedom of the elements. Advantages of organizations are enhancement (more of the same), addition (combination of different features) and extension. Disadvantages can be inertness (through co-ordination) and loss of interaction.

Organization in management and organizational studies

Management is interested in organization mainly from an instrumental point of view. For a company, organization is a means to an end to achieve its goals.

Organization theories

Among the theories that are or have been most influential are:

• Weberian organization theory (refer to Max Weber's chapter on Bureaucracy in his book 'Economy and Society')
• Marxist organization analysis
• Scientific management (mainly following Frederick W. Taylor)
• Human Relations Studies (going back to the Hawthorne studies, Maslow and Hertzberg)
• Administrative theories (with work by e.g. Henri Fayol and Chester Barnard)
• Contingency theory
• New institutionalism and new institutional economics
• Network analysis
• Economic sociology
• Organization ecology (or demography of organizations)
• Agency theory (sometimes called principal - agent theory)
• Studies of organization culture
• Labour Process Theory
• Critical Management Studies
• Complexity Theory and Organizations
• Transaction cost theory/Transaction cost Economics (TCE)
• Garbage can model
• Actor-Network Theory and the 'Montreal School'
• social entrepreneurship

Organizational structures

Main article: Organizational structure

The study of organizations includes a focus on optimizing organizational structure. According to management science, most humanorganizations fall roughly into four types:

§  Pyramids or hierarchies

§  Committees or juries

§  Matrix organizations

§  Ecologies

Pyramids or hierarchies

A hierarchy exemplifies an arrangement with a leader who leads leaders. This arrangement is often associated with bureaucracy. Hierarchies were satirized in The Peter Principle (1969), a book that introduced hierarchiology and the saying that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence".

An extremely rigid, in terms of responsibilities, type of organization is exemplified by Führerprinzip.

Committees or juries

These consist of a group of peers who decide as a group, perhaps by voting. The difference between a jury and a committee is that the members of the committee are usually assigned to perform or lead further actions after the group comes to a decision, whereas members of a jury come to a decision. In common law countries legal juries render decisions of guilt, liability and quantify damages; juries are also used in athletic contests, book awards and similar activities. Sometimes a selection committee functions like a jury. In the Middle Ages juries in continental Europe were used to determine the law according to consensus amongst local notables.

Committees are often the most reliable way to make decisions. Condorcet's jury theorem proved that if the average member votes better than a roll of dice, then adding more members increases the number of majorities that can come to a correct vote (however correctness is defined). The problem is that if the average member is worse than a roll of dice, the committee's decisions grow worse, not better: Staffing is crucial.

Parliamentary procedure, such as Robert's Rules of Order, helps prevent committees from engaging in lengthy discussions without reaching decisions.

Staff organization or cross-functional team

A staff helps an expert get all his work done. To this end, a "chief of staff" decides whether an assignment is routine or not. If it's routine, he assigns it to a staff member, who is a sort of junior expert. The chief of staff schedules the routine problems, and checks that they are completed.

If a problem is not routine, the chief of staff notices. He passes it to the expert, who solves the problem, and educates the staff – converting the problem into a routine problem.

In a "cross functional team", like an executive committee, the boss has to be a non-expert, because so many kinds of expertise are required.

Organization: Cyclical structure

A theory put forth by renowned scholar Stephen John has asserted that throughout the cyclical nature of one’s life organizational patterns are key to success. Through various social and political constraints within society one must realize that organizational skills are paramount to success. Stephen John suggests that emphasis needs to be put on areas such as individual/ group processes, functionality, and overall structures of institutions in order to maintain a proper organization. Furthermore, the individual's overall organizational skills are pre-determined by the processes undertaken.:

Matrix organization

This organizational type assigns each worker two bosses in two different hierarchies. One hierarchy is "functional" and assures that each type of expert in the organization is well-trained, and measured by a boss who is super-expert in the same field. The other direction is "executive" and tries to get projects completed using the experts. Projects might be organized by regions, customer types, or some other schema. matrix management

Ecologies

This organization has intense competition. Bad parts of the organization starve. Good ones get more work. Everybody is paid for what they actually do, and runs a tiny business that has to show a profit, or they are fired.

Companies who utilize this organization type reflect a rather one-sided view of what goes on in ecology. It is also the case that a naturalecosystem has a natural border - ecoregions do not in general compete with one another in any way, but are very autonomous.

The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline talks about functioning as this type of organization in this external article from The Guardian.

"Chaordic" organizations

The chaordic model of organizing human endeavors emerged in the 1990s, based on a blending of chaos and order (hence "chaordic"), comes out of the work of Dee Hock and the creation of the VISA financial network. Blending democracy, complex system, consensus decision making, co-operation and competition, the chaordic approach attempts to encourage organizations to evolve from the increasingly nonviable hierarchical, command-and-control models.

Similarly, emergent organizations, and the principle of self-organization. See also group entity for an anarchist perspective on human organizations.

Organizations that are legal entities: government, international organization, non-governmental organization, armedforces, corporation,partnership, charity, not-for-profit corporation, cooperative, university.

The organization of the artist

The organization of the artist is a term first used by architect Frank Gehry to denote the organizational set-up he enforces in order to ensure that the architect/artist is in control of design through construction. The organization of the artist deliberately eliminates the influence of politicians and business people on design. The purpose of the organization of the artist is to ensure that it is the design of the architect/artist that is actually implemented and not some compromise decided by political and business interests.

Gehry initially developed the concept of the organization of the artist as a reaction against what he calls the "marginalization of the architect/artist." Gehry explains:

"There's a tendency to marginalize and treat the creative people like women are treated, 'sweetie, us big business guys know how to do this, just give us the design and we'll take it from there.' That is the worst thing that can happen. It requires the organization of the artist to prevail so that the end product is as close as possible to the object of desire [the design] that both the client and architect have come to agree on." (Flyvbjerg 2005, 53).

Gehry argues that the organization of the artist, in addition to making possible artistic integrity, also helps keep his buildings on time and budget, which is rare for the type of innovative and complex designs that Gehry is known for. The organization of the artist thus serves the dual purpose of artistic freedom and economic prudence.

Leadership in organizations

Leadership in formal organizations

An organization that is established as an instrument or means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions, jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards him from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position.

Leadership in informal organizations

In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organization that underlies the formal structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the social structures that generally characterize human life — the spontaneous emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.

In prehistoric times, man was preoccupied with his personal security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now man spends a major portion of his waking hours working for organizations. His need to identify with a community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders.

Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to gain cooperation from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.

Leader in organizations

An individual who is appointed to a managerial position has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position. However, he must possess adequate personal attributes to match his authority, because authority is only potentially available to him. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate authority.

Hybrid organizations

A hybrid organization is a body that operates in both the public sector and the private sector, simultaneously fulfilling public duties and developing commercial market activities. As a result the hybrid organization becomes a mixture of both a part of government and a privatecorporation.

 Cellular Organization

        a form of organization consisting of a collection of self-managing firms or cells held together by mutual interest. A cellular organization is built on the principles of self-organization, member ownership, and entrepreneurship. Each cell within the organization shares common features and purposes with its sister cells but is also able to function independently. The idea is an extension of the principles of group technology, or cellular manufacturing.