(a) Explain the various types of organisational culture. (10 marks) (b) Define organisational design. Explain in detail the…

(a) Types of organisational culture (10 marks)

Organisational culture is the shared set of values, beliefs, norms and practices that shapes how people in an organisation behave. Cameron and Quinn's Competing Values Framework, built on internal versus external focus and flexibility versus control, gives four types:

• Clan culture: a family-like, people-oriented workplace based on loyalty, teamwork, participation and mentoring; leaders act as facilitators (for example Infosys in its early years).
• Adhocracy culture: a creative, entrepreneurial culture rewarding innovation, risk-taking and adaptability, common in start-ups and technology firms.
• Market culture: a results-oriented culture focused on competition, targets, achievement and market share, with a tough, driven leadership.
• Hierarchy culture: a formal, structured culture based on rules, procedures, control and stability, common in government offices and large bureaucracies.

Other classifications are Handy's power, role, task and person cultures, and Deal and Kennedy's work-hard/play-hard, tough-guy, process and bet-your-company cultures. Culture may also be strong or weak, and dominant or subculture. No type is best: the fit with strategy, environment and people decides effectiveness.

(b) Organisational design (20 marks)

Meaning (6). Organisational design is the process by which managers decide how work is divided, grouped and coordinated, and how authority and communication flow, so that the structure fits the strategy and environment. It is a managerial process (deciding), whereas organisational structure is its outcome, the resulting framework of positions and relationships, as shown in the organisation chart. Design is therefore purposeful and ongoing, as changes in strategy, technology or environment call for redesign.

Salient features managers must consider (14):

• Work specialisation (division of labour): the degree to which tasks are broken into separate jobs, which raises efficiency but may lead to monotony.
• Departmentalisation: grouping jobs by function, product, geography, customer or process.
• Chain of command and authority: unbroken lines of authority, unity of command, and delegation and responsibility.
• Span of control: the number of subordinates a manager can effectively supervise, which decides whether the structure is tall or flat.
• Centralisation and decentralisation: where decision-making authority lies.
• Formalisation: the extent of rules, procedures and written documentation.
• Coordination and integration mechanisms: committees, liaison roles, task forces and information systems. Design choices depend on contingencies: strategy (Chandler: structure follows strategy), size and life cycle, technology, and environmental uncertainty. Burns and Stalker showed that stable environments suit a mechanistic design (rigid, formal, centralised) and turbulent ones an organic design (flexible, decentralised). Managers must balance differentiation with integration, and control with flexibility.

(c) Types of organisational structure (20 marks)

Structures range from traditional to contemporary forms.

• Functional structure: groups people by specialised function (production, marketing, finance). Strengths: specialisation, economies of scale and clear career paths. Limitations: silos, slow cross-functional coordination, and narrow view of overall goals. Best for small or single-product firms in stable environments.
• Divisional structure (product, geographic or market): semi-autonomous units with their own functions. Strengths: focus on products or markets, accountability for profit, and quicker response. Limitations: duplication of resources, rivalry between divisions and loss of scale economies.
• Matrix structure: functional and project or product lines overlay, so that employees report to two bosses. Strengths: flexible use of experts, better coordination, and suited to complex projects. Limitations: dual authority, role conflict, power struggles and high communication cost.
• Team-based structure: cross-functional teams are the central unit, giving empowerment, speed and innovation, but needing strong skills and facing accountability and conflict problems.
• Network or virtual structure: a small core firm outsources major functions to specialised partners linked by technology. Strengths: flexibility, low overhead and access to expertise; limitations: loss of control, dependence on partners and risk to quality and confidentiality.
• Boundaryless and hybrid forms: blend structures to remove internal and external barriers; effective but complex to manage.
• Line and line-and-staff structures: the simple base of authority, with staff specialists advising line managers, which can cause line-staff conflict. Critical examination: no structure is universally superior. The functional form suits stability and efficiency, divisional forms diversification, matrix and team forms complexity and innovation, and network forms agility. The right choice fits strategy, size, technology, environment and people, and structures must be reviewed as these change; frequent restructuring, however, itself disrupts the organisation.