For this week’s
assignment, I came across an academic article discussing the use of
organizational structures in conjunction with company innovation. In Jelinek’s
2009 article “Organizing for Innovation,” she gives the reader a step-by-step
account of how organizational structures were first introduced to companies;
starting with Taylor’s scientific management to Weber’s notion of bureaucracy
(Jelinek, 2009). In addition, the author goes on to mention what works and
does not work for companies who have functional, virtual and matrix structures
(Jelinek, 2009).
When initially
reading the article, I pondered whether Jelinek's analysis could in any way tie
into our current readings, particularly Daft’s (2007) “Fundamentals of
Organizational Structure.” I questioned the two articles comparison because although Daft goes into great
detail to define significant structures that contribute to the daily workings
of companies, Jelinek questions why organizations should adhere to structured
formats (Jelinek, 2009). Reading through her article, I started to understand
why Jelinek brought up all these questions – when a company places itself
within an organizational structure, if it does not allow any room for
unforeseen change or creative exploration, it cannot be innovative enough to
expand it’s reach (Jelinek, 2009). This concept alone, along with “innovation
draws on resources outside that reside well beyond traditional organizational
boundaries” immediately made everything full circle for me (Jelinek, 2009, p.
202).
I understand and
agree with Daft (2007) that all companies need some form of organizational
structure in order to define a vision, set goals and have fluent departments
that work together. But like the strengths and weaknesses any company
experiences, it’s important as Jelinek says to move away from tradition so that
companies can adapt to flux and change without extreme limitations (2009).
In applying
Jelinek’s article to my current job, I believe that although several
departments are functional structures with horizontal linkage (Daft, 2007), we’ve
been able to adapt to the times by learning what our viewers like and do not
like to watch. Furthermore, because we are constantly searching for new ways to
target our demo audience, innovation is key. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this week's assignment because it not only gave me the chance to compare and contrast two authors theories, but it also allowed me to challenge myself to dig a little dipper to understand another aspects of organizational structure.
Reference:
Daft, R. (2007) "Fundamentals of Organizational Structure."
Organization Theory and Design (9th ed.), pp. 88-125 (Chapter 3)
Jelinek, M. (2009). Organizing for innovation. Encyclopedia of
Technology and Innovation Management, 199.
Crystal, I think that Jelinek's statement that "when a company places itself within an organizational structure, if it does not allow any room for unforeseen change or creative exploration" is a provocative one. Do you agree? Might it be that certain structures are more or less conducive to innovation, as opposed to all types of structures acting to stifle innovation? What sorts design decisions can organizations make in order to be better positioned to innovate?
ReplyDeleteHi Jessica,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your question that maybe "certain structures are more or less conducive to innovation, as opposed to all types of structures acting to stifle innovation?" I believe that many companies are different in terms of exploring change or sticking with what they know works. In Daft's (2009) "In Practice" example of Blue Bell Creamies, Inc.. the popular creamery in Texas intentionally sticks to an internal work structure where their products stay local and not mass marketed. As a small company, they've found success in sticking to what works for them, while maintaining high quality products that remain in demand within their area and neighboring states Alabama and Louisiana.
Secondly, for companies that may be open to change, but not sure when innovation may occur, I would suggest a functional matrix structure. This structure still lends authority to executives, but opens up a window of creative input/output with project managers who coordinate new projects, etc. (Daft, 2009, p. 110). These variations in structure offer companies more room for growth and innovation, which sometimes cannot be done by companies abiding only by vertical structures.
Thanks for the feedback!
Crystal
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Crystal,
ReplyDeleteWhen your organization changed structures because of the changing times and the need to target your audience, what kind of organizational structures changes did the company make? Were they changes in the chain of command? Were they changes in personnel? Or were there new linkages implemented. I am trying to understand how your company has been able to stay effective with the constant changes in your target audiences.
Xiomara
Hi Xiomara,
ReplyDeleteBecause I work at a television network, we have several departments that work together on new show premieres, special mini series and marathons. Every show has one person from Marketing, Publicity, Programming and Standards & Broadcasting Practice (they make sure the episode is OK to air) assigned to it. As a close knit team for each show in addition to our daily department assignments/goals, we literally work together from the time of premiere to the season finale to make sure viewers read and see the correct footage and information. If anything happens, we immediately work together to resolve the issue.
Due to this cohesive structure, not including the fact that every employee at my company goes through an intensive hiring process, we have been fortunate to adjust to new changes and target our audience as planned.
Hi Crystal,
ReplyDeleteJelinek's quote (2009), "when a company places itself within an organizational structure, if it does not allow any room for unforeseen change or creative exploration, it cannot be innovative enough to expand it’s reach" is one that caught my eye as I reviewed other classmates' posts. It speaks to the crux of good business in the 21st century. I have noticed in reviewing several of the organizational structures among the class, that most are functional with vertical structures. Many suffer from issues in the way of effective communication and while some have horizontal linkages to ease the communication fatigue, that, too, comes with its challenges. I agree with you that a matrix structure might work well in those environments that need to collaborate quickly amongst departments. This seems to hold true particularly in entertainment environments. I believe it to be the case for my own department. I have already seen fatigue with the small shifts to more horizontal linkage in my department. Xiomara mentioned on my blog entry (Moncada, 2012) and I agree with her, as well, that management will have no choice but to go with the flow of horizontal linkages if subordinates become accustomed to it and becomes the the standard within a department. While in the short term, I am thinking this might work to at least see the change in info flow occur, long-term, it has its disadvantages. My question is the same as Xiomara's....how does a department make that change smoothly...by the will of the people, by management understanding the value of change? I believe I might be one of the few in my office who will see sooner than most, why a continued use of vertical linkage might not be best for us as a whole. The fun and the challenge for me will be in the manner in which I show management that alternative methods be considered.