Abdul Basit

establishment McShane and Von Glinow tell that the scoop out administrational grammatical construction depends on the organizations external environment, size, technology, and schema (409). To identify the best organizational organize for Protege plan, I go forth first determine what organisational Structure delegacy. In a second step I go out analyze its elements and carve step up the pregnant components for the considered organization. Finally I leave behind entrust a inference and recommendation.Organizational Structures In general, organizational anatomical structure is related to the way that an organization organizes employees and jobs, so that its take to the woods bottom of the inning be coiffeed and its goals batch be met. McShane and Von Glinow define Organizational Structure in much(prenominal) detail they allege that organizational structure refers to the division of labor as strong as the patterns of coordination, communication, workflow, and orb supply that direct organizational activities (386).To understand what this manner we allow for squander a look at each component. The division of labor is related to the atom of work into separate jobs assigned to diametric people (McShane and Von Glinow 386). The patterns of coordination refer to the coordinate of work activities between the employees where they divide work among themselves. This process holds coordinating implement to ensure the workflow, which means that everyone works in concert (McShane and Von Glinow 386).The primary means of coordination argon escaped communication which involves sharing information on rough-cut tasks and forming common mental models to synchronize work activities, Formal power structure which refers to the charge legitimate power to individuals, who then use this power to direct work processes and allocate resources, and Standardization which involves the creating moment patterns of behavior or output (McShane and Von Glino w 387).We base live with that informal communication is indispensable in no routine and ambiguous situations because employees can exchange salient volume of information by means of face-to-face communication and other media-rich channels. Therefore informal communication is important for Protege Engineering because their work involve unsanded and novel situations when developing particular solutions for each lymph node. Even if informal communication is difficult in large firms it can be manageable when keeping each production invest small (McShane and Von Glinow 388).Now, that we identified what organizational structure means, and that informal communication is necessary for Protege Engineering, we penury more or less more information of how structures differ from each other. McShane and Von Glinow state that every confederacy is configured in terms of four radical elements of organizational structure namely hybridise of reserve, centralization, formalisation, and departmentalization (390). Further on, I go forth explain these four elements and carve out what this means for Protege Engineering.The span of check refers to the number of people directly reporting to the next level pecking order (McShane and Von Glinow 390). Todays research found out that a wider span of control (many employee directly reporting to the centering) is more appropriate curiously for companies with stave members that coordinate their work mainly through standardized skills and do non require close supervision like the higher(prenominal)ly skilled employees of Protege Engineering (McShane and Von Glinow 390-391).However, McShane and Von Glinow also state that a wider span of control is possible when employees shake up routine jobs and a narrow span of control when people perform novel jobs. This statement is based on the bring for frequent program line and supervision. Another influence on the span of control is the grade of interdependence among employee s. Employees that perform highly interdependent work with one another need a narrow span of control because they tend to have more conflicts with one another.I assume that the employees working for Protege Engineering do not require close supervision because they atomic number 18 highly educated have university degrees in these fields and a few have doctorates therefore, a wider span of control allows the employees to work in self-directed teams that coordinate mainly through informal communication and formal hierarchy plays a minor role (McShane and Von Glinow 390-391). centralisation occurs when formal decision authority is held by a small separate of people (McShane and Von Glinow 393).Companies lots decentralize when they become larger and their environment more complex however, different degrees of decentralization can occur simultaneously in different party of the organization. In my opinion, the power of decision-making should be decentralised in the considered company b ecause the mentioned projects demand highly specialized knowledge, which cannot be provided by the head of the organization. Formalization is the degree to which organizations standardize behavior through rules, procedures, formal training, and related mechanism (McShane and Von Glinow 393).Usually larger organizations tend to have more formalization because direct supervision and informal communication among employees do not manoeuvre easily when larger numbers of people are involved. barely that Protege Engineering employs about 600 individuals, I assume that a high degree of formalization is not appropriate because their jobs cannot be standardized, every project is customized to the client and has therefore novel and new components.Another evidence against formalization is, that formalization tends to descend organizational flexibility, organizational learning, creativity and job satisfaction, which the employees of Protege Engineering emphatically need (McShane and Von Glin ow 409). Regarding the first three elements of organizational structure we can involve that Protege Engineering should have an organic structure because organizations with organic structures operate with a wide span of control, modify decision making, and little formalization (McShane and Von Glinow 395).This structure works well in dynamic environments because they are very plastic to change, more compatible with organizational learning, high performance workplaces, and quality management because they emphasize information sharing and an empowered workforce rather than hierarchy and status (McShane and Von Glinow 395). Departmentalization specifies how employees and their activities are grouped together like presented in an organizational chart of the organization (McShane and Von Glinow 395).A operable structure organizes organizational members around particular knowledge or other resources, which enhances specialization and direct supervision however, functional structure we akens the focus on the client or product (McShane and Von Glinow 396-397). A functional structure would not support Protege Engineering because the succeeder of this company highly depends on especially developed products for its clients therefore, this organization should focus on the satisfaction of its clients rather than focusing on organizing employees around specific resources.A divisional structure organizes groups of employees around geographic areas, clients or products in very monotone team-based structures with low formalization. This structure seems to be very appropriate for Protege Engineering because it focuses employees attention on products or clients and self-directed teams with low formalization. However, there are some disadvantages that need to be considered, like duplicating resources and creating silos of knowledge. Conclusion and Recommendation In the introduction I stated that the best organizational structure depends on the organizations external environm ent, size, technology, and strategy.We found out that Protege Engineering should have an organic organizational structure because a wide span of control, decentralized decision-making, and little formalization will organizes employees and jobs so that Protege Engineering work can best be performed and its goals can best be met. Furthermore, McShane and Von Glinow give the advice that merged leader should formulate and implement strategies that shape both characteristics of the contingencies as well as the organizations resulting structure (409). This advice is very valuable because the structure of an organization should follow its strategy and not vice versa. . Many organizations designate that they integrate organizational finishings when unify or acquiring other companies. inform what does integrating organizational civilisations means? Under what conditions is this strategy most apparent to succeed? Case 6 Merging Organizational Cultures Introduction either organization has its own culture. According to McShane and Von Glinow organizational culture stands for the values and assumptions overlap within an organization (416). When companies are merging with, or acquiring, other companies the likeliness is very high that the organizational cultures differ from each other.To avoid that the new company ends up with two different cultures, there need to be any kind of integrating organizational cultures. First I will explain what integrating organizational cultures means and second I will present the conditions under which this strategy is most likely to succeed. Finally, I will provide a conclusion and recommendation. Merging Organizational Culture The exigency of merging organizational cultures becomes clear when regarding that failures to coordinate activity, based on heathen conflict, contri onlye to the widespread failure of corporate mergers (Weber and Camerer 412).Differences in culture in an organization lead to consistent decreased performan ce for both employees by and by the merger, and there is an evidence of conflict from the differences in culture, which could be a possible source for the high turnover rate following mergers (Weber and Camerer 412). McShane and Von Glinow also state that most mergers and acquisitions fail in terms of subsequent performance of the merged organization and that this happens because leaders fail to conduct due-diligence of the corporate cultures (426).At this point, we can admit that some forms of integration may allow companies with different cultures to merge successfully. wiz strategy in avoiding heathenish collisions is to conduct a bicultural audited account. A bicultural audit is a process of diagnosing cultural relations between companies and ascertain the extent to which cultural clashes will likely occur (McShane and Von Glinow 427). The bicultural audit identifies cultural differences and determines those that possibly result in conflict. In addition, it also identifies v alues that provide a common ground on which cultural foundations can be built.Finally, it identifies strategies and prepares action plans to bring the two merging cultures together (McShane and Von Glinow 427). In some cases the bicultural audit may identify that the two cultures are too different to merge effectively however, the companies can still form a possible union, if appropriate merger strategies are applied (McShane and Von Glinow 427). Like the following lesson shows, McShane and von Glinow provide four main strategies to merge different corporate cultures successfully. jut out 4 Strategies for MergingDifferent Organizational Cultures Source McShane and Von Glinow 428. The first strategy is Assimilation, which occurs when employees at the acquired company willingly embrace the cultural values of the acquiring organization (McShane and Von Glinow 427). This strategy is most likely to succeed when the employees of the acquired company are looking for good because they h ave a weak, dysfunctional culture and the acquiring company has a strong culture, which is aligned with the external environment (McShane and Von Glinow 427).The second strategy is Deculturation, which means that the acquiring company is imposing their culture and business practices on the acquired organization (McShane and von Glinow 428). However, this strategy rarely works because employees usually resist organizational change, especially regarding personal and cultural values. Sometimes deculturation may be necessary for compositors case, when the culture of the acquired company does not work effectively (McShane and von Glinow 428). The third strategy and the strategy which the given case is asking for is the Integration Strategy.This strategy is a gang of the two or more cultures into a new composite culture that preserves the best features of the previous cultures (McShane and Von Glinow 428). That sounds like a good compromise, but the integration strategy is slow and po tentially risky because there are many forces preserving the subsisting cultures (McShane and Von Glinow 428). McShane and Von Glinow also state that mergers typically suffer when organizations with importantly divergent corporate cultures merge into a single entity with a high degree of integration (McShane and Von Glinow 427).This strategy works best when both sides can benefit from an integration strategy for example, when the existing cultures of both companies are not optimal and could use some improvements. The negative aspects of the integration strategy for example being very time-consuming result from the employees being resistant to changes, or ambiguous rules which are also a source of conflict and often occur during mergers and acquisitions (McShane and Von Glinow 335).However, the integration strategy, which is the most effective combination of all existing cultures, is most likely to succeed when the existing cultures can be meliorate and members of the organizatio n are motivated to adopt a new cast of dominant values (McShane and Von Glinow 428). The fourth strategy is separation, which occurs when the merging companies agree to watch distinct entities with minimal exchange of culture or organizational practices (McShane and Von Glinow 428).This strategy is most suitable when the merging organizations operate in different industries or countries because cultures differ between industries and countries (McShane and Von Glinow 428). Conclusion and Recommendation The integration process of merging companies is a combination of the existing cultures into a new culture that maintains the best features of the previous cultures, and it is most likely to succeed when existing cultures already need improvement so that employees are motivated to accept change.This strategy is especially challenging when the members of the organization are satisfied with their previous culture because they will be resistant to change. Another very important factor fo r the success of mergers is the level of commitments made by the employees. Therefore, employees should be brought into the process as aboriginal as possible (Badrtalei and Bates 314).