Organizational Structure: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
==Criticisms== | ==Criticisms== | ||
*1. No academic link between relatedness and performance more to do overcoming issues with Industry structure and firm specific characteristics | *1. No academic link between relatedness and performance more to do overcoming issues with Industry structure and firm specific characteristics | ||
*2. [[author::Prahalad and Hamel]] decry the tyranny of the SBU as it does not facilitate complex interactions | *2. [[author::Prahalad]] and [[author::Hamel]] decry the tyranny of the SBU as it does not facilitate complex interactions. See [[The Core Competency of the Organization]] | ||
[[Category:Strategy]] | [[Category:Strategy]] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:05, 31 October 2012
U-form unitary form - split functional responsibilities Mfg. Marketing , Personnel, Finance etc When firms got too larger especially when the diversified firm made it ineffective. In response Duport, GM etc developed the Multi-divisional M-form that allowed semi-autonomous divisions each with its own set of functions based on Brand, Product or Regional Lines. Successful because Execs could focus on Corporate Strategy
Advantages of M-form
- 1. Addition / deletion is easier
- 2. Accountability,
- 3. Comparison
Chandler says these can lead to Scales / Scope advantages but also higher admin costs.
Organizational structures
- Functional - Centralized around key functions
- Functional Holding - core centralized around key function - rest is decentralized
- Holding - Highly decentralized
- Multi-divisional, centralized strategically, decentralized ops
Criticisms
- 1. No academic link between relatedness and performance more to do overcoming issues with Industry structure and firm specific characteristics
- 2. Prahalad and Hamel decry the tyranny of the SBU as it does not facilitate complex interactions. See The Core Competency of the Organization
