Organization design entails a prescriptive body of knowledge
Organization design entails a prescriptive body of knowledge, and aims at the creation of organizations that will help in accomplishing specific objectives and goals. There has been a growth in interest in organizational design due to the increment of complexity over a long time. Through chapter 1, I understand that different organizational stages are followed in organizational designs. This is applicable in the real-life world since they show the stages that a company has gone through from being just a simple business to being a complex multi-business.
The first stage entails a single business strategy since every business begins as a single business organized in functions like sales and product development. The second stage for any company has to be diversification of the business in other new business areas where it petitions the business into profit and loss centers for the business areas. In every company, there is the third stage where the company ventures in other host countries instead of just the home market. This helps in adding third dimensions to the organization. The last step of organizational design, which is applicable in the real world, is focusing on customers (Fjeldstad, & Snow, 2018). There is a need for adding customer segments in every organizational design, such as Walmart, which has global customers. These companies use the Galbraith star model, which serves as a foundation which any company basis on while choosing its design choices. An application in the real world is where the Galbraith star model gives a company like Walmart many design policies that can be controlled by the management, and it profoundly influences employee behaviors. It helps organizations in understanding all the categories of organizational designs which include, the strategies, structures, processes as well as rewards, and selections.
Assignment 2
Organizational Thinking and Your Project
The historical perspective of organizational designs is that it entails a simple structure that has little formation, which is very common in small businesses. Additionally, another historical perspective is that for any group which has the same occupational specialties together through the functional structure.
There are specific theories, models, and paradigms which apply to organization design. There is a weber Bureaucratic model is used up to date, and it entails structuring of organization hierarchically with formal rules governing the organizations. There is the M form, which describes various techniques of how companies may structure itself. The M-Model helps in the creation of a quasi-independent business within big companies (Fjeldstad, & Snow, 2018). On the other hand, there is a mechanical organization that entails high organizational formalization and complexity. There is the use of instructional theories that portray that the environment, which includes hard external regulations and soft concepts, gives meaning to the organizational designs.
There is a close connection between theories and different models that are related to organizational design and all the activities of the real-world organizations. This is because contemporary societies such as coca-cola company use models such as weber’s Bureaucracy model for the structuring of the organization hierarchically through the organization’s rules and procedures which govern the organization (Fjeldstad, & Snow, 2018). Through a combination of different paradigms and models in coming up with ways for the organization to structure itself, such as the M-form and the matrix form. They help in creating a quasi-independent business with a large organization such as Coca Cola Company. Hence different companies should integrate models, theories, and paradigms of organizational designs to come up with the best structure for the organization like coca-cola.
References
https://sso3.capella.edu/openam/UI/Login?goto=https://campus.capella.edu/web
Fjeldstad, Ø. D. & Snow, C. C. (2018). Business models and organization design. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 32-39.