What is the best structural approach for an organization?
Every organization — whether a small or large company — is beholden to an organizational framework to which the complexities of power, authority, roles, and responsibilities are all distinct. When analyzing the difference between organically and mechanically structured organizations, one must first consider his own perspective. Upon further research, one postulation became evident beyond all — a singular approach to organizational structure does not necessitate a unilateral net benefit for every workman. In fact — more often than not — corporate structures and any ensuing restructures bear consequences that often ebb the complexities of organizational efficiency, workman autonomy, and net output.
“With every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction.”
It is an unattainable feat to conjecture what the correct organizational structure fit would be for a specific entity after considering the broad spectrum of businesses already existent, each with each varying requirements. Furthermore, the consortium of businesses and related submarkets make it impossible to suggest the best fit for an organization’s structure because every organization is different than the other. However, postulations could be made when given historical data from the organization and if one excesses diligence after considering any benefactors and related net realizations (gain/loss). Therefore, a unilateral approach in determining an organizational structure-fit requires one to first distinguish any existent peculiarities and idiosyncrasies within its workman ranks, submarket, and stakeholders.
To play devil’s advocate to the question therein, “what is the best structural approach for an organization?” I would implore one to consider this: could an organization’s inefficiencies be scapegoated as a mismatched organizational structure, rather than, perhaps, an inept organizational leader?
It is well within the possibility that an organization’s scale could indeed supersede the existing structure confining it. However, by conception, any answer is just an assumption. Therefore, we could assume that said organizational leader was adept with poor organizational strucutre; and inversely, we could also assume that failure is indeed at the helm of the leadership’s onus.
Juxtapositioning mechanically structured and organically structured organizations yield a dichotomy — where the results of having organizational adaptability (a result of organic structure)could indeed necessitate structural change. For instance, should certainty become nascent, such as international scaling or unprecedented growth, is realized, organizational leaders. Therefore, as a business scales, its leaders should always consider whether organizational restructuring is prudent.
Organic structures are common amongst organizations sub 3-year TIB, volunteers groups, and perhaps, organizations yet to have scaled to the degree that necessitates actual structural change. The flat nature and nimble characteristics of seed/startup organizations afford the company a degree of strategic adaptability.
An organization with an organic structure has a flat hierarchy and a decentralized decision-making process. A democratized nature of organic structuring affords managers and workmen a degree of authority and autonomy. More importantly, the flat structure and wide span control afford nimble firms, such as startups, a high degree of adaptability. This is especially useful when navigating uncertainties such as business funding and consumer-product adaption. Therefore, when coupled to the right strategic conditions, such as a growth rate or development cycle, the added autonomy increases workman efficiency. However, the output may falter when an organization is scaling, perhaps to an international market. Fallacy as such more often than-not are a result of business growth, foreign market penetration (in most cases) thus requiring additonal organizaitnal structure.
An added division of labor drafts organizational specialties, frequently defined by departments, leadership roles, and workman positions. The added division of labor and hierarchal departmentalization provides the organization the benefit of security. For instance, an organization may benefit from added compliance adherence now that those tasked with specialty roles execute human recourses, accounting, and in-house counsel.