Introduction
Organizational structure and culture influences the behavior and thinking of the employees. It not only provides them clarity but it also helps them to understand their roles and responsibilities in the company. Strong culture increase efficiency and satisfaction level of the workers. It induces the sense of ownership which improves the overall productivity of the business (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2015). It allows the management to fulfill their strategic goals and objectives. The present report is based on Real Time Business (RBS) which is an Australian company providing terminal management software and related services. It is a medium size company which has approximately 50 employees. But they have been providing competition to many large firms and they have expanded their business to many different countries.
Organizational structure, culture and business strategy
Real Time Business (RBS) has been planning to become a market leader providing terminal management software and services. They have functional organizational structure in which all the decisions are taken by the managers. The employees are also given less freedom because they have to follow the orders of the seniors and functional managers (Subramanian, Venkateswaran and Fu, 2013). It can restrict the growth of the employees because they are not given opportunity to express their view and opinions. The business strategy of the company is to become leading organization which cannot be possible without possible without innovation, creativity, employee engagement and empowerment. The culture of the company has also been very restrictive. The workers are not allowed to use their phones and internet. They are bound to follow the procedures, policies and the framework created by the senior management (Jones and George, 2015). It has not only limited the growth of the employees but it has played an important role in increasing the employee turnover ratio.
Comparison of RBS and other structures
RBS Functional Organizational structure
|
Matrix structure
|
Divisional structure
|
There are specialized functions in the organization such as Quality Assurance team, software developers etc.
|
There are two operational dimensions and dual management.
|
It has divisions of different products or markets.
|
It is easier to maintain and understand.
|
Complex organizational structure.
|
Separate and independent divisions
|
Suitable for RBS because they operate in one location and with single product.
|
Suitable for company with multiple products.
|
Suitable for multinational corporations.
|
Restrictive communication and lack of coordination
|
Effective communication
|
Difficult to communicate
|
Advantages
RBS Company is a medium size company and they have proving tough competition to other companies. The management has been planning to change their strategy to make sure that their vision and mission is not affected by external factors. Furthermore, they have introduced rewarding methods which are linked to the performance of the workers and their loyalty (Ashkanasy and Dorris, 2017). Those employees who stay with the organization for more than two years are given gifts such as bonus, increased pay, iphones, laptops etc. They have also introduced employee of the month concept to reward the good performing employees. Apart from this, they have Quality Assurance team which takes care of the customers. It has helped them to improve the relations with the existing customers. Moreover, critical decisions are taken by the managers who are highly competent and skillful. It provides clarity and better guidance is provided to the workers.
Challenges due to organizational structure
The main challenges in the organization are:
Low adaptability to change: All the decisions are taken by the managers and employees are not included in it. It has affected the adaptability and the employees will become resistant if new changes are introduced. RBS has to become flexible so that they can adapt to the changing business environment. They have increased restrictions which will have negative impacts on the business.
Lack of employee engagement: Performance linked rewards have been introduced to change the demands and needs of the workers. But it has been ineffective because lack of engagement in the company has reduced their moral and satisfaction level (Ashkenas, Ulrich and Kerr, 2015).
Ineffective communication system: Top down approach has to be changed because it is not beneficial for the organization. They require open communication system in which the employees can share their opinions and views (Ostroff and Schulte, 2014). It improves the team work, integration and coordination between all the members. But it has not been implemented by RBS which will lead to inefficiency and low productivity.
Increased workload on managers: They have increased work load on few managers as they all responsible for all decisions (Jones and George, 2015). It is important for them to delegate some tasks and involve other team members. It will lead to growth and development of the workers. It has been a big chlnges for the company.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that RBS has made good plans and strategies for their future. Furthermore, they have the resources and capabilities to achieve it. But their organizational structure, policies, culture and communication system are not aligned with it. It will have negative implications on the business and they will not be able to adapt to the changing requirements of the business environment.
References
Alvesson, M. and Sveningsson, S., 2015. Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. Routledge.
Ashkanasy, N.M. and Dorris, A.B., 2017. Organizational culture and climate.
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S., 2015. The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. John Wiley & Sons.
Jones, G. and George, J., 2015. Contemporary management. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Ostroff, C. and Schulte, M., 2014. A configural approach to the study of organizational culture and climate.
Subramanian, A., Venkateswaran, A. and Fu, R., 2013. Project Characteristics, Organizational Structure, and Managerial Incentives.