This is just a discussion post from my classmate. I just need to respond. Based

Question

This is just a discussion post from my classmate. I just need to respond. Based off of what is written, please with a simple analysis of what's written. (example: Interesting post, I see that...)

_________________________________________________________

Simple Design Structure –

                In a simple structure, when it comes to division of labor, task delegation tends to be done in an informal manner (Saylor Academy, n.d.).  While this may work okay for a very small business (e.g., a family run mom/pop shop), it fails to take advantage of specialization where employees develop very high prophecies in specific tasks.  As a result, employees in a simple design structure may act of jack-of-all-trades where everyone can accomplish all necessary tasks, but the end result is less efficient than specialization.  A second trade-off for the simple structure is that informal approaches to things like rules, regulations, and performance guidance may make the environment more comfortable and casual, but this could lead to lacking motivation, task confusion, and motivation issues (Saylor Academy, n.d.). Beyond the informal approach, a lack of delegation by the small business owner may lead to those same problems, plus work overload for that owner (Ashe-Edmunds, n.d.).

Functional Design Structure –

                In larger firms with more complex needs, formal divisions of labor may be needed and the functional structure provides that division within a hierarchy (Saylor Academy, n.d.).  While this approach take advantage of increased efficiencies resulting from specialization, it can cause the firm to be slow to adapt/change when needed as more divisions have to be aligned toward new strategies (Saylor Academy, n.d.).  Another trade-off within a functional design structure can be seen in increased performance versus bureaucratic communication flow.  While there may be performance increases due to the compounding effect of many employees, with a shared specialty, working in the same department, decision making can be complicated and more bureaucratic as communication must work its way throughout the larger hierarchy (Griffin, n.d.).

Multidivisional Structure –

                In a multidivisional approach, departments are based on either geographic region responsibilities or product areas (or both, in some cases) (Saylor Academy, n.d.).  This approach can be beneficial in that adaptation and decision-making happens faster than the bureaucratic hierarchies that sometimes exist in formal structures.  This occurs because single divisions have greater responsibility for their own operation and have been empowered to make decisions to move more quickly (Saylor Academy, n.d.).  A downside to the multidivisional approach is that they can be very costly to operate.   While each division has been empowered to run itself, this requires a duplication of functions between divisions (such as each division needing its own marketing firm) which is less efficient and requires greater resources (Scilly, n.d.).

Matrix Structure –

                The matrix structure involves cross-functional teams which are project-focused and rely on horizontal relationships (across departments) as opposed to more traditional vertical hierarchies (Saylor Academy, n.d.).  The matrix structure can provide increased flexibility and communication, but can contribute to infighting over resources and talent as project managers compete with one another (Saylor Academy, n.d.).  This structure also helps to speed projects across multiple functions, but the increased complexity of the structure can cause challenges due to conflicting management policies/approaches when comparing the multiple functions (Gleeson, 2018)

1.2-

    A matrix structure would work well for a small occupational safety consulting firm.  Individual consulting projects would be assigned to individual project managers who would oversee completion of their projects to meet the customers’ needs.  That manager would work the project through, horizontally across functional departments, until complete.

                I specified a “small” consulting firm because one major tradeoff of a matrix structure is that while you’ll get increased flexibility, you may see infighting due to competition between project managers over resources.  A smaller operation would help limit that chance by only focusing on a couple of projects at once to avoid stretching resources too thin.  I envision a firm with an executive officer/head manager and only six other employees.  Having three project managers would allow the firm to handle three consulting cases at once.  Three other positions would be dedicated to the individual functional specialists: A legal/compliance specialist, a product development/sourcing specialist, and an education/training specialist.  The compliance specialist would ensure that the project remains within the scope of applicable federal/state/local regulatory guidance.  The products specialist would specialize in sourcing the physical products to meet customer needs within the project.  Finally, the education/training specialist would develop the training plans and products necessary to implement the product in the customer’s organization.

                The small footprint of the firm would offset the complexity that comes with a matrix structure and reduce infighting over resources.  However, I see where this type of operation could run into a problem down the road:  If the firm is very successful and needs to grow to meet increasing demand, it would lose the small footprint that helped mitigate some of the downfalls associated with the matrix structure.  In this instance the firm may find itself having to choose between jeopardizing its limited/simpler scope to pursuit growth, or opting out of growth to maintain the small scope that mitigated matrix problems.

Explanation / Answer

Interesting post, I see the discussion points comprehensively describe various labor division strategies; business model would determine the best fit strategy and it may evolve over a period of time to meet employee and customer expectations.

1. Simple design structure:

This structure is more beneficial for very small businesses, where task delegation happens in an informal manner and employees need not require a high prophecy in a specific task. As a result, we tend to compromise on the efficiency in the output. An informal approach towards company rules, regulations and performance guidance may make the work environment casual and comfortable; it could lead to task confusion and motivational issues.

2. Functional design structure:

In this structure, we would engage specialized workforce, organize them with in a hierarchy and take the advantage resulting from the compounding effect of many specialized people contribution. This model can cause the firm slow to adapt any change as the communication or strategy must work its way through a larger strategy

3. Multi divisional structure:

In this approach, the scope is limited to geographic or product area. Although the adaptation to change and decision making happens at a faster pace with that of functional design structure, the cost of operating the business is very high. Each division is empowered to own and make decisions so we may notice duplications of functions between divisions.

4. Matrix structure:

This structure may work well for a small occupational safety consulting firms, where individual consulting projects are assigned to project managers who would oversee completion of projects that meet end to end needs of a customer.

Matrix structure involves cross functional teams that rely on horizontal relationships as opposed traditional vertical hierarchies. This structure can provide increased flexibility, communication and speed up projects across geographies but its complex structure can cause challenges with conflicting management policies and you may also infighting between project managers over resources. A smaller operation focusing on couple of projects at once may avoid stretching resources at once too thin and address most of the challenges but as the scale of business increases to meet increasing demand it may lose that flexibility. In this instance the firm may find itself having to choose between jeopardizing its limited/simpler scope to pursuit growth, or opting out of growth to maintain the small scope that mitigated matrix problems.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.