Project Topics

IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIP IN LARGE ORGANISATION

IMPACT  OF ORGANIZATIONAL  STRUCTURE  ON 
INTERPERSONAL  RELATIONSHIP  IN 
LARGE ORGANISATION

 

ABSTRACT

The
research  profers an assessment of the
impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large
organization. It  analyses organization
structure  its functions and significance
.The research projects organization structure as a unifying factor enhancing
interpersonal relationship in large organization towards to the accomplishment
of the aims and objective of the organization.

INTRODUCTION

Organizational
structure defines how individuals and groups are organized or how their tasks
are divided and coordinated (Mintzberg, 1983). In this changing world,
companies have had to learn how to formulate and implement their strategies
through projects and organizational structures in order to successfully face
threats and opportunities. However, the management of multiple projects is not
easy due to its complexity.

Theories
on organizational structures started with the identification of organizing as a
distinct managerial function. They took formal shapes upon results from studies
on organizational structures which covered many widely different industries.
They included studies on the manufacturing industry by Lawrence and Lorsch
(1967), administrative organization by Balu and Schoenherr (1980), investment banks by Eccles and
Crane (1988) and multi-national organization (Ghoshal and Nohoria, 1989). With
the emergence of the systems and contingency theories, the importance of the organizational
structure as a critical component of a formal organization had finally gained
position in research.

In a research on the organization structures in
six enterprises, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) summarized the features of the organization
structure to be the span of control, number of levels to a shared superior,
time span of review of departmental performance, specificity of review of departmental
performance and importance of formal rules. Drazin and Van de Ven (1985)
defined the organizational structure in terms of specification, standardization,
discretion and personnel expertise. They agreed with Lawrence and Lorsh on the
feature of specialization. Mintzberg (1989) studied seven types of organizations,
namely, entrepreneurial, machine, professional, diversified, innovative,
missionary and political. He found them to be based on key parts of the organization,
type of decentralization and their coordinating mechanism. Applied research on organizational
structures in organizational companies, developed further when many researchers
applied basic research results on organizational theory in other fields.
Lansley (1994) indicated that strong linkage existed among different organizational
models and advocated using them for the reconciliation of conflicts. Mukalula
(1996) studied three aspects of a organization firm’s structure: namely, organizational
complexity, formalization, centralization and decentralization of authority. Sunkuk (1997) adopted five among the
seven types of organizations presented by Mintzberg (1989) to examine which
managerial environment will best reflect that of the organization. Applied
research extended the study of organizations beyond organizational features to
relationships with the operating environment.

Among the basic and applied research studies,
there is agreement on the following:

• The structure of an organization is important to
the performance of the organization. This would mean that the project
management team’s structure would certainly affect its performance. Two basic
features of a structure of an organization are its width as indicated by spans
of control, and its height as indicated by the levels of decentralization.
Mintzberg (1983) defines the organizational structure as; “…the sum of total in
which its labour is divided into distinct tasks and then its coordination is
achieved among these tasks.” There is no such thing as a best organizational
structure. One needs to carefully consider the reason for why the organization
is there and Mintzberg (1983) means that the structure should be selected to
achieve an internal harmony, as well as alignment with the organization’s
situation (Hatch, 2006; Mintzberg, 1983).

CHAPTER   1

1.1    BACKGROUND OF THE  STUDY

The
establishment of management structures for the management of a project is one
of the important activities required for accomplishing goals. Shaker (2003) in
a publication reviewing Peter Druckerbooks, who argues that management is the
function, which involves getting things done through other people. Basically
this involves the following, which are all aspects of setting organization
matters for performance: Getting Managers with leadership capabilities, Getting
staff with competence and appropriate skills, Placing responsibilities on
people for successful completion of the project, Establishing clear delegated
authorities Defining proper communication lines. Since these outlined duties relate
to the matters concerned with internal organizational running, it may be argued
that they are solely for the purpose of improving only organizational
performance. Kotnour (2000) asserts that some of the internal organizational
matters such as organizational learning practices increase project success too.
The tendency to have the project success increased therefore lies in the
ability of the manager to develop certain strategies within the organization.
The research intends to investigate the impact of organizational structure on
inter personal relationship in large organization

1.2   STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

      The problem confronting the research is
an assessment of the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal
relationship in large organization.

The
research intends to analyze organizational structure and determine its
functionality to enhance interpersonal relationship in large organization.

1.3    RESEARCH QUESTION

1   
  What constitute the nature of
organization structure?

2   
  What are the types and
functionality?

3   
  What is the impact of
organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization?

1.4     OBJECTIVE  
OF THE RESEARCH

1      TO   determine the nature of organization
structure

2      To appraise the types and functionality

3      To determine
the impact of organizational structure on   interpersonal
relationship in large organization

1.5       SIGNIFICANCE  OF THE STUDY

     The research shall project organization
structure as a unifying factor in enhancing interpersonal Relationship in large
organization towards the realization of organizational aims and objective.

1.6      STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS

1      H0   Organizational
structure is not significant in large          organization

        H1   organizational
structure is significant in large         organization

1           
H0    The
level of interpersonal relationship in large        organization
is low

H1
   The level of interpersonal relationship
in large        organization is high

2           
H0  The impact of organizational structure on
interpersonal    relationship in large
organization is low

H1   The impact of organizational structure on
interpersonal   relationship in large
organization is high

1.7    SCOPE OF THE STUDY

       The research profers an assessment of
the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large
organization

DEFINITION OF TERMS

ORGANISATION  STRUCTURE 

Mintzberg (1983) defines the organizational
structure as; “…the sum of total in which its labour is divided into distinct
tasks and then its coordination is achieved among these tasks.” There is no
such thing as a best organizational structure. One needs to carefully consider
the reason for why the organization is there and Mintzberg (1983) means that
the structure should be selected to achieve an internal harmony, as well as
alignment with the organization’s situation (Hatch, 2006; Mintzberg,
1983). 

FORMALIZATION  

Formalization
is defined as the emphasis placed on following rules and procedures when
performing one’s job (cf. Pugh et al. 1968).

Formalization
reduces confusion because staff know what they are expected to do during
product development and this helps coordinate effort, and facilitate productive
exchanges between managers (Thompson 1967). Further, formalization establishes managers’
role expectations and expected information flows from their counterparts on
product development projects (Moenaert and Souder 1990a).