Organisational Structure Essay Example for Free

Organisational Structure Essay All organisations are designed to suit their objectives, role, and mission. Internal structure of an organisation is the way in which interrelated groups of an organisation are arranged in a particular fashion for effective communication and best possible coordination (Wikipedia, 2006). Organisational structure plays an important role in day-to-day functions of an organization. The organisational structure of an organization will dictate the delegation of authority, work specialization, and employee reporting framework. An efficient structure will facilitate decision making. A good organisational structure removes uncertainties and helps in planning for future expansion as well (Business Bureau-uk, 2002). A company would adopt a suitable combination of structure and control systems that are most effective for pursuing sustainable competitive advantage. In addition to coordinating strategy implementation, the role of structure and control is to motivate and provide incentives for superior performance. There are numerous internal and external factors affecting the way organizations structure themselves. This essay will scrutinize organisational structures of small and medium sized organizations in different countries. An evaluation of the factors affecting these structures has also been carried out coupled with an analysis of the response from these organizations to varying challenges. Organisational Structures Three major components of organisational structure identified by most theorists include complexity, formalisation, and centralisation (Robbins, 1987). Complexity is basically the degree of differentiation that exists within an organization. Horizontal differentiation considers the degree of separation between units of the same level and vertical differentiation refers to the depth of the organizational hierarchy. A well-known way of horizontal differentiation is the multidivisional (M-form) structure (Chandler, 1962). This structural form is used by firms to carry out most diverse economic activities. Other forms of horizontal differentiation are the functional structure in which people and tasks are grouped together on the basis of their common expertise and experience. Then there are the geographic structures, which use regional basis for organizing activities, and the product division structure which has a focus on products or product groups. The second component of organisational structure is the formalisation. The formalisation refers to the degree to which jobs within the organization are standardized. If a job is highly formalized, there are explicit job descriptions, lots of organizational rules, and clearly defined procedures. The formal organization however does not imply that the organisational structure will become inflexible. The informal organization on the other hand is any joint activity without conscious joint purpose, even though contributing to joint results (Barnard, 1964). The third component of organisational structure is the centralisation. It is defined by most theorists as the degree to which decision making is concentrated at a single point in the organization. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in Different Countries SMEs are generally defined as having fewer than 250 employees and less than 50 million euros in annual turnover (Cardais, 2005). SMEs play a major role in developed economies. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, in 2000, 99. 8 per cent of enterprises in 19 countries in Western Europe were SMEs (Kuwayama, 2002). In the United States, small businesses employ more than half of the labor force. The SMEs constitute 96% of the total establishments and represented 69% of total employment in the US (APEC, 2006). SMEs are inherently adaptive to changing market and supply environments. SMEs help in deepening managerial and entrepreneurial skills, and are considered very attractive because of their diversity and competition in the supply of products and services. In United States, SMEs generate half of the national total sales. Most of these corporations develop market-like relationships between the different parts of their organisation. This is reflected in the greater use of the multidivisional structure form. In United States, companies are split into profit centres in pursuance of their market strategies. There is however heavy reliance on formal procedures and standardisation of organisational roles which makes American companies to coordinate a large diversity of economic activities. In Europe, 20 million small and medium sized enterprises comprise major chunk of the European economy. The SMEs in Eurpoe are providing around 65 million jobs. SMEs have greater opportunities to continuously evlove their structures keeping in view their diversified role and constantly changing competitive environments. Organisational Structure of SMEs is very dynamic in Europe. In Germany specially, SMEs are more centralized than US companies and planning and control is more integrated (Europa, 2006). The German SMEs are characterised by a strong linkage between enterprise and owner. This close relationship strongly influences the internal structure and market strategies of the enterprises (Hauser, 2000, pp. 1-2). Factors Reshaping Organisations There are many internal and external forces that can affect an organization. Internally an organization creates its own internal structure, mission, and fiscal policies. These internal forces are designed to meet the external challenges like competitors, the economy, and the demands of the customers. All these factors are having unified impact on organizations in United States and in Europe. Customer demands are influencing organizational structures directly in the same manner that supply can affect demand and vice versa. Another area influencing organizational designs is the constantly changing requirements of the human resources. Surveys conducted in United States have revealed changing workforce behaviour. Changing drives for motivating workers, and getting the best out of them affects the way a company needs to organise its resources. SMEs in developed economies are influenced by e-business to a great extent, allowing them to trade worldwide from a single website. Organisations in Europe and United States are deeply effected by the environment. The advancement of technology is forcing the companies to reengineer their processes. The general environment is dictating change in socio-cultural outlook of companies. With regard to the task environment, major forces playing their part in reshaping organisations include competitors, customers, suppliers, regulators, and strategic allies. High performance and customer satisfaction are directly related to structural design of a company. To compete effectively, the company must avoid becoming operated by a top-down approach. In an era of rapid change and high technology, companies are required to shift centralized management controls. The environment is dictating to focus on streamlining operations, and empowering workers with the knowledge, skills and resources to do their jobs. Analysis of Response to Changing Requirements Change is always viewed differently by the management and the employees. Top level management perceives change as an opportunity to strengthen the business and to advance in their career. The employees however do not welcome the change. They consider change as disruptive and intrusive. They may worry about their ability to meet new job demands. They may think that their job security is threatened, or they may simply dislike ambiguity. Some managers may also feel threatened by the change since it may be against their self-interests. Managers so affected may fight the change as well. But the change is inevitable. The only thing constant in this world is the change. Organizations in Europe and United States are changing and actively adapting to their environments. Organisations in United States are structuring to small business units to tackle complex, and highly uncertain environments in the face of huge competition. Organizations whose structures are not fitted to the environment can not perform well and eventually fail (Borgatti, 1996). The changes are being made to the tools, resources, and the physical or organizational settings of the company. Organisations in Europe and United States are redesigning their structures to meet new challenges. Customers, owners, suppliers, regulators, local communities, and other employees are changing their needs constantly which are compelling the SMEs to adopt a flexible and dynamic structure. The Impact of uncertainty avoidance dimension is forcing towards flexibility of jobs definition and task interchangeability which is quite visible in US and European companies nowadays (Hofstede, 1980). Conclusion The last decade of 20th century witnessed developments occurring within a frame work of rapidly expanding social and economic interdependence on a global scale. Organizations have evolved through periods of incremental or evolutionary change. The major work changes happening today are changes in organizational strategy, organizational structure and design, technology and human resources. In contrast to the classical scholars, most theorists today believe that there is no one best way to organize. What is important is that there be a fit between the organizations structure, its size, its technology, and the requirements of the environment including the competitors. References http://www.actetsme.org/usa/usa98.htm http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/orgtheory.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_structure

My Life according to me :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My Life According to Me   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My name is Biff Loman. I had a very confusing life, now that I look back upon it. My mother, Linda was a very loving and caring person. And I have a brother, Happy also; he is a very entertaining guy. But then we have my father, Willy. Willy always had these preconceived notions about how I was going to live my life, and how I was going to be one day. I used to try and try to work at different organizations, but Willy had already poisoned my mind, by basically telling me that I was too good for that. He in essence thought that I should have skipped the small stuff and gone right to the top. But as I’m more aware of now, that’s not how life is. But because of him every job I went to I thought I was â€Å"too good† for, when really all I had to do was give it my all and work my way up.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This is also how I felt about woman for a while too. I thought that I was too good for her and I would eventually move on and be even unhappy than I was before because I really just wanted a good relationship, with someone but because of my father I had a hard time giving of myself, because he kind of taught me to be more so self involved. But then I found my wife, Elizabeth. She was the one who taught me finally that life was not always about what you want, but you have to learn to love to love. And that was a very useful lesson for me to finally learn at this time. Elizabeth and I have two amazing children, Nadia and Ethan. What I have tried to do with my children is teach them that on one hand you have to have big aspirations to have big things happen in your life, and to never short change yourself, and this is something that I got from my father, Willy and I tell them that. But what I also try to instill in them is that you have to start off small to have big things happen you can’t expect big things happen right away, because I feel that this is something that I learned the hard way.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Now I work at an agency in Boston, I’m not the top executive yet, but I know with a little more hard work and time that in time I will come to the top.

Handloom Sector

The Textile industry occupies a unique place in our country. One of the earliest to come into existence in India, it accounts for 14% of the total Industrial production, contributes to nearly 30% of the total exports and is the second largest employment generator after agriculture. Today, India's textile sector comprises four important segments: †¢Modern textile mills †¢Independent Power looms †¢Handlooms and †¢Garments ROLE OF HANDLOOM SECTOR:The Handloom sector plays a very important role in the country’s economy. It is one of the largest economic activities providing direct employment to over 65 lakhs persons engaged in weaving and allied activities. As a result of effective Government intervention through financial assistance and implementation of various developmental and welfare schemes, this sector has been able to withstand competition from the power loom and mill sectors.This sector contributes nearly 19% of the total cloth produced in the country and also adds substantially to export earnings. Handloom is unparalleled in its flexibility and versatility, permitting experimentation and encouraging innovations. The strength of Handloom lies in the introducing innovative designs, which cannot be replicated by the Power loom sector. Thus, Handloom forms a part of the heritage of India and exemplifies the richness and diversity of our country and the artistry of the weavers.The Office of the Development Commissioner for Handlooms has been implementing, since its inception in the year 1976, various schemes for the promotion and development of the handloom sector and providing assistance to the handloom weavers in a variety of ways. Some of the major programmes relate to: †¢Modernisation and Up gradation of Technology †¢Input Support †¢Marketing Support †¢Publicity †¢Infrastructural Support †¢Welfare Measures †¢Composite Growth Oriented Package †¢Development of Exportable Products †¢Resea rch ; DevelopmentThe various schemes implemented by the Office of Development Commissioner for Handlooms address the needs of weavers who constitute the disadvantaged social strata and occupational groups, which are at the bottom of the economic hierarchy. Concerted efforts are being made through the schemes and programmes to enhance production, productivity, and efficiency of the handloom sector and enhance the income and socio-economic status of the weavers by upgrading their skills and providing infrastructural support and essential inputs.

Biography of Maj. John Andre, Who Aided Benedict Arnold

Major John Andre (May 2, 1750–Oct. 2, 1780) was a British intelligence officer during the American Revolution. In 1779, he assumed oversight of secret intelligence for the British army and opened contact with American traitor Maj. Gen. Benedict Arnold. Andre was later captured, convicted, and hanged as a spy. Fast Facts: Major John Andre ï » ¿Known For: Handler for infamous American traitor Major General Benedict ArnoldBorn: May 2, 1750 in London, EnglandParents: Antione Andre, Marie Louise GirardotDied: Oct. 2, 1780 in Tappan, New YorkNotable Quote: As I suffer in the defense of my country, I must consider this hour as the most glorious of my life. Early Life and Education John Andre was born May 2, 1750, in London, England, the son of Huguenot parents. His father Antione was a Swiss-born merchant, while his mother Marie Louise hailed from Paris. Though initially educated in Britain, he was later sent to Geneva for schooling. A strong student, he was known for his charisma, skill at languages, and artistic ability. Returning to England in 1767, he was intrigued by the military but lacked the means to purchase a commission in the army. Two years later, he had to enter business following his fathers death. During this period, Andre met Honora Sneyd through his friend Anna Seward. They became engaged but delayed a wedding until he had built his fortune. Over time, their feelings cooled and the engagement was terminated. Having accumulated some money, Andre revisited his desire for an army career. In 1771, he purchased a lieutenants commission and was sent to the University of Gà ¶ttingen in Germany to study military engineering. After two years, he was ordered to join the 23rd Regiment of Foot (Welsh Regiment of Fusiliers). American Revolution Andre reached Philadelphia and moved north via Boston to his unit in Canada. With the April 1775 outbreak of the American Revolution, Andres regiment moved south to occupy Fort Saint-Jean in Quebec province. In September, the fort was attacked by American forces under Brig. Gen. Richard Montgomery. After a 45-day siege, the garrison surrendered. Andre was captured and sent south to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where he lived with the family of Caleb Cope in a loose house arrest until freed in a prisoner exchange in late 1776. Rapid Rise During his time with the Copes, he gave art lessons and compiled a memoir regarding his experiences in the Colonies. Upon his release, he presented this memoir to  Gen. Sir William Howe, commander of British forces in North America. Impressed by the young officer, Howe promoted him to captain on Jan. 18, 1777, and recommended him as an aide to Maj. Gen. Charles Grey. He saw service with Grey at the Battle of Brandywine, Paoli Massacre, and Battle of Germantown. That winter, as the American army endured hardships at Valley Forge, Andre enjoyed the British occupation of Philadelphia. Living in Benjamin Franklins house, which he later looted, he was a favorite of the citys Loyalist families and entertained numerous ladies, including Peggy Shippen. In May 1778, he planned an elaborate party for Howe before his return to Britain. That summer, the new commander, Gen. Sir Henry Clinton, abandoned Philadelphia and returned to New York. Moving with the army, Andre participated in the Battle of Monmouth on June 28. New Role After raids in New Jersey and Massachusetts later that year, Grey returned to Britain. Because of his conduct, Andre was promoted to major and made adjutant-general of the British Army in America, reporting to Clinton. In April 1779, his portfolio was expanded to include overseeing the British intelligence network in North America. A month later, Andre received word from American Maj. Gen. Benedict Arnold that he wished to defect. Arnold had married Shippen, who used her prior relationship with Andre to open communication. A secret correspondence ensued in which Arnold asked for equal rank and pay in the British Army in exchange for his loyalty. While he negotiated with Andre and Clinton regarding compensation, Arnold provided a variety of intelligence. That fall, communications broke off when the British balked at Arnolds demands. Sailing south with Clinton late that year, Andre took part in the operations against Charleston, South Carolina, in early 1780. Returning to New York that spring, Andre resumed contact with Arnold, who was to take command of the fortress at West Point in August. They began corresponding regarding a price for Arnolds defection and the surrender of West Point to the British. On Sept. 20, Andre sailed up the Hudson River aboard HMS Vulture to meet with Arnold. Concerned about his aides safety, Clinton instructed Andre to remain vigilant and in uniform at all times. Reaching the rendezvous point, Andre slipped ashore on the night of Sept. 21 and met Arnold in the woods near Stony Point, New York.  Arnold took Andre to the house of Joshua Hett Smith to complete the deal. Talking through the night, Arnold agreed to sell his loyalty and West Point for 20,000 pounds. Trapped Dawn arrived before the deal was completed and American troops fired on the Vulture, forcing it to retreat down the river. Trapped behind American lines, Andre had to return to New York by land.  He expressed concern about taking this route to Arnold, who provided Andre with civilian clothes and a pass for getting through American lines. He also gave Andre papers detailing West Points defenses. Smith was to accompany him for most of the journey. Using the name John Anderson, Andre rode south with Smith. They encountered little difficulty through the day, though Andre decided that wearing his British uniform was dangerous and donned the civilian clothes.   Captured That evening, Andre and Smith encountered a detachment of New York militia, who implored the two to spend the evening with them.  Though Andre wanted to press on, Smith felt it prudent to accept the offer.  Continuing their ride the next morning, Smith left Andre at the Croton River. Entering neutral territory between the two armies, Andre felt comfortable until around 9 a.m., when he was stopped near Tarrytown, New York, by three American militiamen. Questioned by John Paulding, Isaac Van Wart, and David Williams, Andre was tricked into revealing that he was a British officer. After being arrested, he denied the charge and offered Arnolds pass. But the militiamen searched him and found in his stocking the West Point papers. Attempts to bribe the men failed. He was taken to North Castle, New York, where he was presented to Lt. Col. John Jameson. Failing to grasp the situation, Jameson reported Andres capture to Arnold. Jameson was blocked from sending Andre north by American intelligence chief Maj. Benjamin Tallmadge, who ordered him held and forwarded the captured documents to Gen. George Washington, who was en route to West Point from Connecticut. Taken to American headquarters at Tappan, New York, Andre was imprisoned in a local tavern. The arrival of Jamesons letter tipped Arnold that he had been compromised and allowed him to escape capture shortly before Washingtons arrival and join the British. Trial and Death Having been captured behind the lines under a false name wearing civilian clothes, Andre was immediately considered a spy. Tallmadge, a friend of executed American spy Nathan Hale, informed Andre that he expected he would hang. Held in Tappan, Andre was exceptionally polite and charmed many Continental officers including the Marquis de Lafayette and Lt. Col. Alexander Hamilton. Though the rules of war would have allowed for Andres immediate execution, Washington moved deliberately as he investigated the scope of Arnolds betrayal. To try Andre, he convened a board of officers headed by Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene with notables such as Lafayette, Lord Stirling, Brig. Gen. Henry Knox, Baron Friedrich von Steuben, and Maj. Gen. Arthur St. Clair. At trial, Andre claimed that he had been unwillingly trapped behind American lines and as a prisoner of war was entitled to attempt escape in civilian clothes. These arguments were dismissed. On Sept. 29, he was found guilty of being a spy behind American lines under a feigned name and in a disguised habit and sentenced to hang. Though he wished to save his favorite aide, Clinton was unwilling to meet Washingtons demand to release Arnold in exchange. Andre was hanged on Oct. 2, 1780. His body, initially buried under the gallows, was re-interred in 1821 in Londons Westminster Abbey at the Duke of Yorks behest. Legacy For many, even on the American side, Andre left a legacy of honor. Although his request for execution by firing squad considered a more honorable death than hanging, was rejected, according to lore he placed the noose around his own neck. Americans were taken by his charm and intellect. Washington referred to him as being more unfortunate than criminal, an accomplished man, and a gallant officer. Hamilton wrote, â€Å"Never perhaps did any man suffer death with more justice, or deserve it less. Across the Atlantic, Andres monument in Westminster Abby bears a mourning figure of Britannia that is inscribed, in part, to a man universally Beloved and esteemed by the Army in which he served and lamented even by his FOES.