Bemer John Alvin A.

Bacosa
4th Year BSBA ECONOMICS

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER 3:

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE OF THE

HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
Date: 06/29/17
Introduction
This chapter deals mainly with the place of the Human Resources Department in the entire
organization and with the structure of the department itself.
Organization in this section refers to the structure created as a result of the grouping of functioning
segments like departments, divisions, sections and units that work into a harmonious relationship
so that all the different processes within the system can operate efficiently and effectively.
Muro states Organizing the personnel involves the structuring and the staffing of the enterprise.
He further adds that. . . The grouping and the functional relationship is sometimes referred to as
the internal structure. It is graphically represented by the organization chart.

THE PLACE OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT IN THE

ORGANIZATION
General Perspective view of departments:
Administration Services
Production (Business settings) or Public Relations
Operations (Government Agencies) Legal
Marketing (Bus. Set.) Corporate Affairs
Finance Research and Development
Human Resources
In some organizations, Human Resources Department is subsumed in another department or it may
be a separate department by itself.
Formation or Establishment of a Separate HRD, more often than not, is determined by the:
Size of Organizational Population
Philosophy of Management
Organizational Emphasis
Financial Resource
Two studies conducted by CONCEPCION R. MARTIRES (1982-84) and followed up in 1994-95
in randomly sampled organizations in Manila. Both studies of 151 private organizations and 41
government agencies showed that the bigger majority of the organizations have formal structures
indicating two different patterns vis--vis the position of Human Resources Department in the
entire Organization. These patterns were classified as:
1. Human Resources Department, a separate department
2. Human Resources Department, combined with any of the other departments:
1. Administrations
2. Operations/Production
3. Finance
4. Services
5. Corporate Affairs
Examples of 1982-84 firms with a separate department:
NAPOCOR, Abbott Laboratories Inc., Eastern Telecommunication Phils. Inc., and Philippine
National Bank.
HRD functions are integrated with those of Administration in Philippine Fisheries Development
Authority, Metropolitan Water, and Sewerage System, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Metro
drug; with Finance like in Philippine- American Life Insurance Co., Kameraworld and Asian
Development Bank; with Operations or Production like in Bank of America and Bacnotan
Consolidated; with Services in Mercatile Insurance Corp., Premiere Financing Corp. and
Engineering Equipment, Inc.; with Corporate Affairs in Suarez Group of Companies and Caltex
(Phils.) Inc.

Table 4.1 Organization Structure of the Private and Public Org. by Percentage

Scheme Private Public

Sector Sector

1: HRD, a separate department 45 30

2: HRD combined with Administration 36 61

3: HRD combined with Operations/ Production 10 5

4: HRD combined with Finance 2 0

5: HRD combined with Services 1 2

6: HRD combined with Corporate Finance 6 2

Table 4.1 gives the percentage of organization in both private and public sectors that follow the
above mentioned schemes.
The Martires studies indicated that the biggest percentage of organizations follow the scheme in
which the Human Resources Department was placed under or integrated with administration.
The study further revealed that while fewer organizations follow the schemes in which the Human
Resources Department is integrated with the other departments, it also indicated that said schemes
are found more in relatively small enterprises.
The managers of Human Resources Departments of organizations following the integrated scheme
expressed their plan to establish a separate Human Resources Department soon as resources are
available. This indicates that the organizational pattern is affected by resources availability. This
phenomenon also exists abroad as shown in various studies on structure.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
3 Dimensions of the organization structure, namely:
Structure of skills- treating the staff qualifications of the Human Resources
Department.
Structure of rewards- will be discussed at the length in the section on compensation
administration.
Structure of authority- Only the structure of authority is treated in this section.
It refers to the degree of centralization or decentralization of decision making normally expressed
in terms of the following four measures:
Width of the organization
Height or tallness of the organization
Span of control
Decision making
Width of the Organization: The number of subsystems, departments, sections and units comprises
the width of organization.
The number and nomenclatures or sections and units of the Human Resources Department, just
like those of the other departments, vary with its objectives, functions, services offered and
available resources. The more functions the HRD is tasked with, the greater the number of services
offered and the bigger staff needed to carry them out. Thus, more sections and units are created
for proper delineation and carrying out of responsibilities and for task specialization. The Human
Resources Department, in this instance, becomes wide in structure. However, the efficiency and
effectiveness of the department is not necessarily a function of its width, although width could be
a factor in the efficient implementation of its programs and projects.
Height of Organization. The height of organization refers to the existing number of levels, statuses
and positions. Just like the width, its height depends on available resources. The flat organization
is generally wide with relatively fewer levels.
Koontz, ODonnell and Weihrich explain the concept of levels thus:
Limitations affecting the span of management are what create levels in organizations: the
larger the enterprise or the narrower the spans, the greater number of levels, other things being
equal.
Organization structure laden with departments and levels cause complexity and losses.
Experience with large organizations proves to anyone the frustrations of layering whereby
authority, suggestions, questions, and instructions must flow up and down the chain of command,
decision makingin which authority is required and useddoes need to.
Study of Poblador: The height or tallness and width or flatness of an organization is a function
of the philosophy of management usually articulated in terms of leadership styles. Tall
organizations are usually associated with democratic leadership while wide or flat organizations
with autocratic leadership.
Cultural values influences organizational characteristics. In the Philippines, because of Filipino
values pakikisama, hiya, extended family system and smooth inter-personal relations,
organizational levels are created to accommodate friends and relatives.
The organizational structure of the Human Resources Departments of Metro Manila organizations
accdg. to Martires

Personal
Development and
Research Division
Partner

Assistant Personnel
Director

Personnel and Training and Audit Performance

Research
Recruitment Pool Evaluation

It is flat, consisting two to four levels. The HRD managers attested to the easier and closer
supervision of flat departments. Even in organizations where the human resources functions are
placed under another department, these functions are generally placed under a separate section
composed of a few units due mainly to lack of funds.
Span for Control. This refer to the number of employees supervised at various levels of the
organization.
Some managers and theorists consider this a significant factor of organizational functioning and
they prescribe formulas to determine the maximum number of workers per supervisor.
Other practitioners and academicians, however, opine that various like managerial ability,
managers time availability, employee skills and ability, task content and task complexity affect
span of control. Hence, no prescribed formula is preferred by them.
The HRD in organizations studied by Martires, vary widely on this measure of centralization. As
few as one to as many as 22 at any one level are under one supervisor. The administrative
component is smaller in the private companies than in the public agencies.
Organization are in a constant rate of flux arising from internal and external changes. It is difficult
if not impossible, to structure an ideal organization considering that it is not static. Armstrong
holds that There is no one right way of organizing anything, and there is no such thing as the
perfect organization. There are always alternatives. . . He added that people is the factor that
causes greatest concern and that . . . They will not slot themselves conveniently into
organizational boxes. . .
However, Armstrong gave some basic approaches when designing an organization structure or
evaluating an existing organization, to wit:
1. Define what the organization or function is there to do.
2. Analyze the circumstances in which the activities are carried out the technology, the
rate of growth or change, the members of management and how they manage (i.e., the
management style), and the environment in which the organization operates.
3. Identify the activities required to achieve the aims of the organization.
4. Group related activities logically together into organizational units and, within these
units, into individual positions.
5. Establish the relationships that should exist in the organization vertically within
functions and horizontally between functions paying particular attention to the need
to integrate the work of related activities.
6. Ensure that everyone in the organization understands what they have to do
(responsibilities), how far they can go in doing it (authority), the structure in which
they operate, and the relationships they are expected to maintain.
Most often, management spends much time and effort in the details of structuring the organization.
However, they should not forget the group and the reason for which organizing is done. In the
process, they should be guided by the question: for whom and for what is the structure made? In
this way, organization becomes dynamic, purposeful and meaningful.