Organisational structure-an overview

Historically, both British and American companies have had a strictly hierarchical corporate structure that may look something like this, depending on the size and scope of the organisation:

CEO (Chief Executive Officer)/President (Am.)

Managing Director/General Manager (Br.)

Chief Financial Officer (CFO); Chief Marketing Officer (CMO); V.P., Research and Development; Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Department Heads and Staff

Employees

To some extent, this structure reflects western values and a traditional approach to authority and decision-making. The roots of today's organisational structure developed along family, craft or agricultural lines that remained mostly unchanged for 5,000 years until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18^thcentury.
Investment in machinery could only be justified if market demand allowed for a large amount of machine usage and, subsequently, cheaper labour costs. The result was a widening separation of workers from managers which created the division of labour between factory workers and managers. This separation led to an organisational structure that was both strongly hierarchical and autocratic in both the U.S. and Great Britain.

This system of manufacturing reached its fullest productivity in the United States. The manufacture of many identical parts and their assembly became known as the "American System" and the business owner or entrepreneur who had taken the risk of buying the machines or opening the business became a dominant influence in the business culture that developed.

Many businesses in both countries continue organising their activities in a similar way today. This hierarchical structure, called the pyramidal structure, has remained essentially the same in most cases. But newer, less rigid approaches to management have come about in many countries, within the newer industries - especially the information technology and communications industries. For example, the reticular or network hierarchy is based on empowered teams sharing mission, expertise, information and culture.

Corporate spin-offs and independent entrepreneurial businesses are dependent on the managers of the new enterprises taking risks. Those risks include experimenting with new ideas and, often, building or buying new equipment or trying out new processes. Ironically, these same managers, when successful, often become reluctant to take the same sorts of risks that they built their careers on again. And as these companies grow, they often come to value compliance and consensus, which provide a sense of security for management and employees.

But there are subtle differences between British and American organisations.
One way to see these is by looking at New Product Development (NPD) in both countries. In general, American firms choose, percentage wise, fewer products to be developed than British organisations. Once a proposal is taken up, however, the rate of launch for a new product is about 50% in the U.S. and only 15% in Great Britain.

Once a product is launched, the success rate is about equal. Both countries involve users in NPD, but the style of management varies. U.S. managers see speed in product development as the most important factor. They are likely to use simulation techniques and prototypes. British organisations are apparently less concerned with the speed of getting a product to market. Therefore, they may place stronger emphasis on Research and Development.

However, no matter what type of hierarchical structure a company has chosen, in the end it's the market that determines the company's success.

Дата добавления: 2015-08-03