Discuss Formal Reporting Relationships

Discussion: Formal Reporting Relationships

Formal Reporting Relationships and Organizational Structures Organizational structure is the design element that ensures that decision rights are correctly allocated. The structure of reporting relationships typically reflects the flow of communication and decision making throughout the orga- nization. Traditional organizational structures are hierarchical, flat, or matrix. The networked structure is a newer organizational form. A comparison of these four types of organizational structures may be found in Figure 3.4.

Hierarchical Organizational Structure As business organizations entered the 20th century, their growth prompted a need for systems for processing and storing information. A new class of worker—the clerical worker—flourished. From 1870 to 1920 alone, the number of U.S. clerical workers mushroomed from 74,200 to more than a quarter of a million.4

FIGURE 3.4 Comparison of organizational structures.

Hierarchical Flat Matrix Networked

Description Bureaucratic form with defined levels of management

Decision making pushed down to the lowest level in the organization

Workers assigned to multiple supervisors in an effort to promote integration

Formal and informal communication networks that connect all parts of the company

Characteristics Division of labor, specialization, unity of command, formalization

Informal roles, planning, and control; often small and young organizations

Dual reporting relationships based on function and purpose

Known for flexibility and adaptability

Type of Environment Best Supported

Stable, certain Dynamic uncertain Dynamic uncertain Dynamic uncertain

Basis of Structuring Primarily function Very loose Function and purpose (i.e., location, product, customer)

Networks

Power Structure Centralized Decentralized Distributed (matrix managers)

Distributed (network)

3 Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, “Investing in the IT That Makes a Competitive Difference, https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/product/R0807J‐ PDF‐ENG (accessed August 20, 2015); James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (New York: Anchor Books, 2005). 4 Frances Cairncross, The Company of the Future (London: Profile Books, 2002).

c03.indd 59 11/26/2015 6:22:13 PM

https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/product/R0807J%E2%80%90PDF%E2%80%90ENG
https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/product/R0807J%E2%80%90PDF%E2%80%90ENG
https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/product/R0807J%E2%80%90PDF%E2%80%90ENG
60

Organizational Strategy and Information Systems

Factories and offices structured themselves using the model that Max Weber observed when studying the Catholic Church and the German army.

You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.

Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.

Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.

The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.