Page 1 of 19

Organizational Structures

Page 2 of 19

An organizational structure (Ramienski, 2008, 3) is mostly a hierarchical concept of subordination of entities that collaborate and contribute to serve one common aim. Organizations are a number of clustered entities. The structure of an organization is usually set up in one of a variety of styles, dependent on their objectives and ambience. The structure of an organization will determine the modes in which it shall operate and will perform. Sexton (1970) said that Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities for different functions and processes to different entities. Ordinary description of such entities is as branch, site, department, work groups and single people. Contracting of individuals in an organizational structure normally is under timely limited work contracts or work orders or under timely unlimited employment contracts or program orders. Researchers, authors and writers have drawn quite different conclusions in addressing the following questions:

What is the history of organizational structures and how it is revealed

by an organizational chart? Sexton (1970), McGraw (2006), Michael and Carrel (1997).

What are the different types of organizational structures? Robbins(2007), Nil Brunson (2000),Waddell and Cummings (2000), Ken Starkey (1996). structures? Paul Heresy (2003) and Carter McNamara (1997)

What are the characteristics of high performance organizational

Why it is needed to change an organizational structure? What will be the problems occur in it? Robbins (2001), Udai Pareek (2004)

How to change an organizational structure? Lisa (1999). What Can Organizational Structure do for User-centered Change?

Philip (2001), Osborn (1999), Jones (1995)

Organizational Structures

Page 3 of 19

Historical Development of Organizational Structure:

Organizational structure is comprised of functions, relationships, responsibilities, authorities, and communications of individuals within each department" (Sexton, 1970, 1).The typical depiction of structure is the organizational chart. McGraw (2006) describes that the formalized organizational chart has been around since 1854, when Daniel McCallum became general superintendent of the New York and Erie Railroadone of the world's longest railroads. According to McCallum, since the railroad was one of the longest, the operating costs per mile should be less than those of shorter railroad lines. However, this was not the case. To remedy management inefficiencies, McCallum designed the first organizational chart in order to create a sense of structure. The organizational chart has been described as looking like a tree, with the roots representing the president and the board of directors, while the branches symbolize the various departments and the leaves depict the staff workers. The result of the organizational chart was a clear line of authority showing where subordinates were accountable to their immediate supervisors.

From Unitary to Multi-Divisional Structures:

Michael (1997) and Carrel (1997) argue that when firms get beyond a certain point, they shift from a unitary to multi-divisional structure. This structure has a general corporate office and several product-based or regional-based divisions, each with functional departments. It first appeared after World War I independently in a number of companies. Michael (1997) describes four phases of growth for American industry. The first was after the civil war and was a time of larger-than-life entrepreneurs who expanded largely through vertical Organizational Structures

Page 4 of 19 integration. The second phase was the creation of professional managers who developed methods to manage larger and larger enterprises (the main example being the railroads). Phase three (from 1900-WW1) included the filling out of existing product lines and diversification into related fields. In the fourth phase (after WW1) some major companies reorganized into a more decentralized "Mform" structure which clearly separated strategic from operational decision-making. This was more advantageous when firms starting acquiring products and services unrelated to their core businesses. Thus, Michael (1997) and Carrel (1997) argued that a firm's structure should be suited to its strategy. The multi-division form frees top management from the day-to-day operations and allows them to concentrate on market positioning and resource allocation among divisions. The form is particularly well suited to multi-national corporations. Michael (1997) gives predictions of the rise of the m-form were supported in several empirical studies. The m-form was adopted more in industries with product-related strategies than in vertically integrated firms. McGraw (2006) also points out that Michael's historical account is consistent with transaction costs framework. The m-form is utilized to simplify the information-processing and decision-making required when diversification increases operational complexity. In the m-form, the general office is responsible for strategic decisions, and the divisions responsible for operational decisions. According to Carrel (1997) the Strategic decisions involve a choice of domain. The individual divisions, often known as SBU's (strategic business units) or profit centers, operate as an interface between the market and a hierarchy. The more the central office is divorced from the divisions, the more they tend to rely upon financial measures to evaluate performance. A further extension of the m-form is the conglomerate, a firm with unrelated divisions that span industry groups. Each division is treated as a profit center, and the general office functions as an internal capital market. Further studies (such as Jennings and Christina Ervin, 1997) suggest that this form can be problematic at times. But these have occurred largely to help firms deal with market uncertainties and as a response to regulatory environments.

From Single to Multiple Forms: McGraw (2006) describes that recently, the notion that bigger is better is giving way to the
realization that other forms involving looser alliances or confederations may offer some more flexible advantages. "Developments in information technologies as well as the increasingly specialized nature of consumer markets has helped to create conditions favoring more flexible production regimes", Carrel (1997) .The newer "network" schemes are another way to organize between markets and hierarchies.

Organizational Structures

Page 5 of 19

Organizational Structure Types:

Pre-bureaucratic structures
Ken Starkey (1996) describes that Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. Cummings (2000) also describes that the structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new (entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development.They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority.

Bureaucratic structures
Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of standardization, Nils Brunson (2000). They are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations. They usually adopt a tall structure. Then tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in distinction between mechanistic and organic structures.

Organizational Structures

Page 6 of 19

Post-Bureaucratic
The term of post bureaucratic as Cummings (2000) is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific .In the generic sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with Weber's ideal type Bureaucracy. This may include Total Quality Management, Culture Management and the Matrix Organization amongst others. None of these however has left behind the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber's rational, legal type, and the organization is still rule bound. Waddell and Cummings (2000), arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned up bureaucracies, rather than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon Kunda, in his classic study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of bureaucratic control - the formalization, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations - does not change in principle.....it shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization's culture'. Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization. Waddell and Cummings (2000), provide a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Cummings (2000), has developed an ideal type Post-Bureaucratic Organization in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision making rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision making by consensus model is often used in Housing cooperatives, other Cooperatives and when running a non-profit or Community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who normally experience Oppression in groups. Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in Complexity Theory and Organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can be used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Nil Brunson (2000) studied how simple structures
Organizational Structures

Page 7 of 19

could be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes links to simple structures and improvises learning. Other scholars such as Jan Rifkin, Kathleen and Nelson Repining revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.

Functional Structures
Ken Starkey (1996) found that the functional structure groups employees together based upon the functions of specific jobs within the organization it is also called Traditional organization structure. It is based on the sub-division of disciplines into separate departments together with vertical hierarchy. It has vertical lines of authority. Its work is partitioned according to specialties of discipline (i.e., the function) and its objective is to emphasize technical excellence.
P M a M A S d a r k e a t in t d A d g R P m e E n s .D g in e r e s id g P n E n E n g g e n t u d . c t io n P a l a n F in a n u n o d n c e c ia g e l l P t s A c c t g . . l a n n in g

e r in n E

r o d gP . r o n Pg .I n . T .u d o

r k e a n s

e s ig

nF i i nn ga g B

v . le

r E ml e .c t r i c a l o . M Q u e c h a . E

r c h u

s in E g n

s t . o l in

gG . e C

e r a s t A

l it y

c c t g

Matrix Structure
Waddell (2000) describes the Matrix structure groups employees by both function and

product. This structure can combine the best of both separate structures. A matrix organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in order to take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and decentralized forms. An example by Cummings(2000) would be a company that produces two products, "product a" and "product b". Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within the company as follows: "product a" sales department, "product a" customer service department, "product a" accounting, "product b" sales department, "product b" customer service department, "product b" accounting department. Robbins (2007) found that Matrix structure is the most complex of the different organizational structures.

Organizational Structures

Page 8 of 19

Weak/Functional Matrix: A project manager with only limited authority is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the project. The functional managers maintain control over their resources and project areas. Balanced/Functional Matrix: A project manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project manager and the functional mangers. It brings the best aspects of functional and projective organizations. However, this is the most difficult system to maintain as the sharing power is delicate proposition. Strong/Project Matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and assign resources as needed.

Among these matrixes, there is no best format; implementation success always depends on organizations purpose and function.

Characteristics of high performance Organizational Structures:

Carter McNamara (1997) describes that the search for an ideal or perfect structure is about as futile as trying to find the ideal canned improvement process to drop on the organization (or ourselves). It depends on the organization's Context and Focus (vision, values, and purpose), goals and priorities, skill and experience levels, culture, teams' effectiveness and so on. Each is unique to any organization. Paul Heresy (2003) explained that research and experience shows that the shape and characteristics of high performing organization structures have a number of common features: Intense Customer and Market Focus systems, structures, processes, and innovations are all aimed at and flow from the voices of the market and customers. Field people and handsOrganizational Structures

Page 9 of 19

on senior managers drive the organization in daily contact with customers and partners. Team-based operational and improvement teams are used up, down, and across the organization. A multitude of operational teams manage whole systems or self-contained subsystems such as regions, branches, processes, and complete business units. Highly autonomous and decentralized dozens, hundreds, or thousands of mini-business units or businesses are created throughout a single company. Local teams adjust their company's product and service mix to suit their market and conditions. They also reconfigure the existing products and services or develop new experimental prototypes to meet customer/partner needs. Networks, Partnerships, and Alliances organizational and departmental boundaries blur as teams reach out, in, or across to get the expertise, materials, capital, or other support they need to meet customer needs and develop new markets. Learning how to partner with other teams or organizations is fast becoming a critical performance skill. Fewer and More Focused Staff Professionals accountants, human resource professionals, improvement specialists, purchasing managers, engineers and designers, and the like are either in the midst of operational action as a member of an operational team, or they sell their services to a number of teams. Many teams are also purchasing some of this expertise from outside as needed. One Customer Contact Point although teams and team members will come and go as needed, continuity with the customer is maintained by an unchanging small group or individual. Internal service and support systems serve the needs of the person or team coordinating and managing the customer relationship.

Why it is needed to change the structure?

Udai Pareek (2004) explains that organizational redesign is structuring an organization, division or department to optimize how it supplies products and services to its clients and customers. Designing an organizational structure is dependent upon: The kind and quality of information it gathers from its customers, suppliers and partners o How the company gathers the information o How it interacts with each of these constituents How this information flows through the organizational structures

Organizational Structures

Page 10 of 19

Who has access to it and who doesn't o How is the information utilized in making decisions o How the information is stored for ease of use and analyzed Whether both the organizational processes and systems reflect and mirror information flow
o

ISN'T IT DONE THAT WAY NOW?

Udai Pareek (2004) answered that in general, NO!! Most organizations look like this:

SO, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?

Robbins (2001) defines that the typical organization structure results in many of the problems which are asked to deal, such as: Conflict between departments (e.g., the perennial one between Sales and Operations) Long lead times in developing new products and services Quality problems, billing inaccuracies, etc. Inefficiencies (which are usually blamed on individuals) Not being able to keep up with customer demands Low employee morale (often related to staff not being empowered to make decisions) Departmental goals and performance measures not being cascaded down through the entire organization (goals stop at the top of the hierarchy without a real appreciation of how "it all fits together")

WHY DOES IT HAPPEN? Organizational Structures

Page 11 of 19

Udai Pareek (2004) also describes that the early stages of a business's relationship to its customers often look like this,

Information about a customer would be gathered by one department which then would parcel it out to the other departments as it saw fit. Frequently, the information wasn't disseminated and discussed between and among the departments. This structure and flow of information is usually sufficient for an early stage or smaller company to function. Udai Pareek (2004) found that the information needed about customers is usually limited ("Do they like it or don't they?"). However, for large and rapidly growing companies that has been accumulating competitors by the bushel-full, the picture changes to........

The company is larger, there are many more customers and different kinds of customers, each with a different variety of needs, expectations, strategies, etc. The old structure according to Robbins (2001), however, persists in too many companies with the one department (usually sales and/or marketing) remaining as the "gatekeeper" for the dispersion of customer information. The net result is that the information each department requires to do its job is lacking, late or incorrect.
THE SOLUTION! REORGANIZATION:

Udai Pareek (2004) gives following examples for understanding the structures more clearly: Example #1:
Organizational Structures

Page 12 of 19

The Problem: A firm supplies large medical equipment to hospitals, care centers, etc. Their problem was that the cost of inventory (of both parts and equipment) was eroding their margins, along with a growing failure to deliver service on time, the emergence of quality issues and similar concerns. Their firm's structure was traditional, with each department being its own "silo". Historically, Marketing's discovery of new markets led to Sales selling any new product they could get a hold of (which were the most financially rewarding for the sales people), the net result being a lack of "family of products" and, therefore, an absence of standardized (and fewer) parts, a need for an ever increasing number of Service personnel as well as an ever demanding need for increased training of Service personnel. The Solution: Replacing the silos with cross-functional teams, i.e., with members from each discipline, at the top. The cross-functional teams retained the old designations (Marketing, Sales, Service, and Operations). The Result: All four teams focused on who their customer was, is and should be, and what could be in the best interest of these units. For example, the Supply team (composed of representatives from each discipline and headed by a Supply person) had as many suggestions as to which customer niche should be targeted as the Marketing team. They offered the characteristics of an ideal customer based on repair rates, additional services required, machine capabilities, etc. Sales and Purchasing, thus, had their marching orders; Marketing had the necessary constraints placed on where they could go to find customer niches; and, as a result, Supply lowered their costs. Compensation programs for sales people were adjusted accordingly. Their IT system was restructured so as to capture the appropriate customer information and shuttle the information each team required. Example #2: The Problem: A large and growing infertility medical practice was experiencing complaints from patients, problems with staff, quality problems (e.g., patients kept waiting, late test results, etc.). Based on interviews with the entire staff and workflow observations, it was clear that there was a serious rift between the Finance/Business and the Clinical Departments. People in one department complained bitterly about people in the other. The Solution: Determining and designating who in fact was the "customer", namely, the patient and her husband. They had to be served. To mirror this, the entire company was placed under the Clinical Department after a director with the requisite skills (both clinical and financial) and background was found. Patient care became pre-eminent. For example, the receptionist (a clinical function) had immediate access to basic insurance information that patients sought previously a patient seeking information talked to at least three people before obtaining the data she needed. The design of the offices which earlier had been a
Organizational Structures

Page 13 of 19

function of what the Business section deemed financially prudent became a clinical decision, resulting in much more inviting and pleasant surroundings. The business functions (billing, collections, and financials) were redesigned so that any information needed about patients was immediately accessible by any department that needed it (marketing, clinical, etc.). In addition, programs to ensure the comfort of the patient couple were introduced. Also, corporate goals and performance standards were created and cascaded downward through each section so that everyone knew what was expected of them. This forced each department of the company to "negotiate" not only their goals but to ensure that their action steps were supportive of and integrated with those of the other departments. The Result: The number of new and retained patients has increased, expenses have been reduced, collections from insurance companies and co-payments have ratcheted upward dramatically, and morale is good and growing.
THE STEPS

Udai Pareek (2004) also describes following steps which are needed to be followed by an organization:
1. Determining How the Company Goes to Market

Sketch how the current organizational structure (e.g., departments, roles, responsibilities, information flow, decision-making, etc.) supports how the company goes to market. Include: What the current structure does well. What the current structure does not do well. If possible, "numbers" that put a value to what is done well and what not. o Draw an ideal organizational structure (first draft) that reflects better how the company goes to market. This step is crucial in establishing the value of the organizational change. Focus on: How it can improve upon the current situation (in "numbers") What it can improve upon. How it will affect the organization and its parts, processes and people.
o

2. Planning Organizational Structures

Page 14 of 19

Determine who should be involved in the planning process, in particular "RACI", i.e. who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulting and who should be kept Informed. o List the major players who perform or are involved in the key processes that support the current structure. o What would the ideal organization (processes, roles, and people) look like (first draft)? Who would fill what position? How can/might/should the current players be utilized in this new schema? o What new equipment, technology, resources, people, skills or systems would be needed in the new structure? 3. Implementation o Develop a schedule (dates and RACI) for the change from the current situation to the ideal state. Create flowcharts that capture the changeover. Be specific about: When and how the change from the old to the new will occur. Impediments that might appear during the transition (e.g., a huge amount of business that might distract people's attention). Create scenarios of what might occur and how they can be handled. o Create a program that would prepare employees for the change. 4. Administrative Issues o Salary adjustments? o Assignment of roles: Sponsor, Project Manager, Oversight Committee, Teams o Regular communication to staff regarding the progress, decisions, plans, etc., of the project. o A written plan that is shared with key personnel, that is referred to periodically, updated when necessary and referred to continually. o Scheduled "monitoring" meetings between the Project Team, Sponsor, and Oversight Committee.
o

How to change an Organizational Structure?

Organizational Structures

Page 15 of 19

Lisa (1999) explains that from time to time as the needs of your organization change so will the structure. Organizations may have to down size, out source, add departments or divisions. In order to change the structure, organizations must do the following. Step1: Determine what changes need to be changed in the organization by reviewing the business plan mission, goals and objectives. Step2: Review the organizational chart and look to see if the organization is top heavy (meaning that there is too many managerial positions and not enough lay persons) or the opposite may be true. There may be too many workers and not enough management. Step3: Make the changes on the organizational chart which acts as the organization's skeleton. Remember just like body bones connect to make the bodies function properly, so must the positions in the organization skeleton connect. Boxes that are not appropriately attached to a department or reporting to someone or something, is a position that may not be needed. Step4: Once the organization have a clear picture of how it should function and look with the new changes of positions and classifications, or positions that have been removed, consult with the HR department to start implementing the changes. Step5: Be sure to have clear proper reasons behind the decisions to change the structure so that organization can articulate this information to HR and legal counsel. They will in turn be able to discuss the feasibility of making changes relative to a timeline and legal authorization.

What can an Organizational Structure do for user centered change?

Designing an organization as by Philip (2001) is not something that managers should take on, without, a good deal of thought. Unfortunately, the coverage of organizational design is often simplified to a toying around with two organizational dichotomies: flat or hierarchical; centralized or decentralized. Osborn (1999) defines that Organizational Design (OD) is a strategic device and as a strategic device, it ought to be the slave to a strategy a full-scale plan that covers everything from the values the organization will hold dear, its

Organizational Structures

Page 16 of 19

mission, including the sorts of goals, objectives and actions it will undertake to accomplish its mission. Philip (2001) also said that Flatness in organizational structure is not an end-goal. It achieves certain things that may indeed be desirable. There are reasons why hierarchy exists in large organizations and have existed for a long time. If hierarchy did not have its benefits, most currently thriving organizations would not have survived as long as they have. Here are a few benefits of hierarchical structures:

The Division of Labor: Osborn (1999) said that Adam Smith and his fellow
Utilitarians could be the reason why Western civilization is as rich as it is. Any one can harp against capitalism all they want, but clearly, the advancement of commerce helped societies uncover major secrets about fulfilling human needs with limited resources. One of the more famous secrets is the division of labor namely, that when group specialize on particular aspects of the production process, the overall result is much more efficient.

Comparative Advantage : Jones (1995) said that In theory, the Director/CEO is the
organizations most competent individual. The problem is that there is only so much a single CEO can do. Thats why he/she hires others to help. Even if a co-worker only performs at 75% of the CEO, its still better that 175% is getting done, instead of just 100%.But theres more. Osborn (1999) tells that Comparative advantage provide us that opportunity cost needs to be considered as well. If any one have their highly competent CEO busy doing mundane clerical work, their organization is losing the opportunity to have him/her busy engaging city leaders, influencing officials, and making high-level decisions about the workplace. So, they assign 75% person to the less important task, focusing your high-level employees on high-value areas.As Philip (2001) describes that Flatter structures tend to mix this advantage up, engaging less proficient individuals in high value areas, resulting in poorer results overall.

Avoiding Micromanaging: By having leaders with powers to make decisions,

anyone can avoid micromanagement in organizations. Jones (1995) asserts that when individual leaders may choose to be micromanagers (which is not a very desirable trait anyway), a hierarchical structure will make it difficult for a director to be looking over the shoulders of his/her employees. Flat organizations can turn into micromanaged by the CEO organizations.

Fair Compensation, Merit and Rewards: There are two principles that fall here.
1) If you ask staff to be involved in high-level decision making, you ought to pay them for it. 2) Many staff wants to see a natural progression to their career path Jones (1995). Hierarchical structures do help signal that a clear path to advancement
Organizational Structures

Page 17 of 19

exists with the organization, and supports a process for paying people based on the degree of risk, difficulty and intellectual gymnastics required to do the job. Reporting Structures : Once organizations reach a certain size, clear communication becomes essential. Directors do not have time to read 1000s of emails, reports, complaints, comments and memos every day. Osborn (1999) said that Hierarchical structures offer some reporting control in large organizations, because a director can get reports from a senior management team, instead of from everyone. Again, this keeps the director focused on high-level thinking and away from the everyday foibles of library work. Flatter structures can lead to confusion and interruption as little fires make their way to the directors desk.

Internal Competition: When structures are set up with departmental silos,

departments will compete against each other for access to the budget. That will increase their willingness to perform, and (believe or not) encourage innovation within the departments.The same works for individuals. Jones (1995) explains that when two employees want the same higher level job, they will compete against each other to show they are the best person for the job. This can be an advantage and can encourage increased productivity.

Accountability; Osborn (1999) defines that Hierarchies do tend to tie

responsibility to individuals, who in turn are likely to respond to reports of poor performance, embarrassing mistakes, and accusations of unethical behavior. By contrast, Jones (1995) said that flat organizations tend to diffuse responsibility to the group, in extreme cases to the point that no one is responsible for any disasters that happen.

Diversity:Osborn (1999) said that Hierarchical structures promote diversity.

Diversity is essential in organizations. Organizational flatness can reduce diversity in organizations because culture can take over, and sound out the dissenting voices.

Is Flatness a Bad Idea?

Flat organizations have their own strengths as well. As Jones (1995) intended this as a counter-point to the idea that Organizational Flatness is an ideal structure, Jones (1995) will not cover it in depth. Staff can have more stakes in the organizations success, more equal/equitable atmosphere, reduced protectionism among departments and so on. In fact, Osborn (1999) could probably take the advantages of the hierarchical structure, take them to extreme and show how a flat structure is more efficient. In the end, the point of this post is not to say that flatness is bad just that flatness affords advantages that can help achieve certain strategic goals at the cost of other advantages that may be better for other goals.
Organizational Structures

Page 18 of 19

REFERENCES:
Carter McNamara (1997). Basic Overview of Organizations (for-profit and non profit): Emerging
Nature and New Organizational Structures. (n.d).Retrieved December 21st, 2008, from: http: // management help. org/org_thry/new_forms.htm

Curtis W. Cook, Philip L. Husker. (2001). Management and Organizational Behavior, 3rd edition. New York, USA: McGraw Hill.

Dianne m. Waddell, Thomson G. Cummings and Christopher g. Worley. (2000).Organizational Development and Change, Pacific Rim edition. Australia: Nelson Thomson Learning.

Gareth R Jones. (1995). Organizational theory -Text and Cases, International edition. USA: Addison Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Ken Starkey. (Eds.). (1996). How Organizations Learn. UK: International Thomson Business Press.

Lisa A. Mainiero, Cheryl L. Tromley. (1999). Developing Managerial Skills in Organizational Behavior, 3rd edition. New Delhi, India: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.

McGraw, H. (2006). Strategic Management: Creating Effective Organizational Designs. Retrieved December 21st, 2008, from: http://management.uta.edu/bgoodman/Summer_MANA/Chapter%2010.ppt

Michael R. Carrel, Daniel f. Jennings and Christina Ervin. (1997). Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior, International edition. New Jersey, USA: Prentice hall International, Inc.

Organizational Structures

Page 19 of 19 Nil Brunson, Johan P. Olsen. (Eds.). (2000). Organizing Organizations. India: Viva Books Private Limited.

Paul Heresy, Kenneth H. Blanchard and Dewey e. Johnson. (2003). Management of Organizational behavior, 8th edition, India: Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.

Ramienski, D. (2008). Looking For a Holistic Approach. Retrieved December 21st, 2008, from: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=169&sid=1377323

Robbins, S.F., Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior, 12th edition. New York, USA: Pearson Education Inc., p. 551-557.

Schemerhor Hunt Osborn. (1999). Managing Organizational Behavior, 5th edition. Canada: John Wiley and Sons, Inc

Sexton. (1960). Organizational Structure. Retrieved December 21st, 2008, from: http://www.acmm.org/structure.php

Stephen P Robbins. (2001). Organizational Behavior, 9th edition. New Jersey, USA: Prentice hall International, Inc.

Udai Pareek. (2004). Understanding Organizational Behavior. India: Oxford University Press.

Organizational Structures