organization design a case study on matching strategy and structure

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, organization design: a case study on matching strategy and structure.

Journal of Business Strategy

ISSN : 0275-6668

Article publication date: 1 April 1983

The structure of an organization is no longer viewed as a rigid definition of hierarchical levels and interrelationships among different groups. Managers use the organizational design process as a fundamental tool for implementing and communicating the strategic direction selected for the firm.

Hax, A.C. and Majluf, N.S. (1983), "Organization Design: A Case Study on Matching Strategy and Structure", Journal of Business Strategy , Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 72-86. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb039024

Copyright © 1983, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• DOI: 10.1108/EB039024
• Corpus ID: 154003732

Organization Design: A Case Study on Matching Strategy and Structure

• Arnoldo C. Hax , Nicholas S. Majluf
• Published 1 April 1983
• Journal of Business Strategy

12 Citations

Organizational structure, just-in-time strategy implementation challenges and the organizational structure dimensions, determinants for the organizational configuration of manufacturing companies offering data-based services, organisational structure in small and medium enterprises, a review of strategic process research, perceived performance in the french tour operating industry, teaching human centered management to engineering students: a personal account, can the balanced scorecard supported by strategic objective costing improve the governance of public sector bodies such as botanic gardens, preference in presentation or impression management: a comparison study between chairmen’s statements of the most and least profitable australian companies, textual differences in chairman's statements of australian companies, one reference, strategy and structure: chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Aligning Strategy and Structure: Implementing Change Effectively

Companies often struggle to effectively align their strategies with their organizational structures, resulting in missed opportunities for growth and innovation.

In fact, a staggering 70% of organizational change initiatives fail to achieve their intended goals.

However, by implementing a customized strategic system, such as the balanced scorecard framework, and leveraging strategic themes, companies can successfully align their strategy and structure.

This article explores the challenges and limitations of structural change, the importance of strategic themes in communication and alignment, and how to create a virtual organization that drives revenue growth.

Get ready to discover innovative approaches to implementing change effectively.

Table of Contents

Key Takeaways

• Structural change can be expensive and may not always be the best solution for aligning strategy and structure.
• Customized strategic systems, such as the balanced scorecard framework, can be more effective in aligning structure with strategy.
• Companies should focus on choosing an organizational structure that works without major conflicts, rather than searching for the perfect structure.
• Strategic themes are important for communicating corporate priorities, aligning employees’ goals, and driving revenue growth.

Challenges and Limitations of Structural Change

Restructuring churn is costly and can create new problems, such as the loss of valuable tacit knowledge and the potential for obsolete infrastructure from previous organizational decisions.

Resistance management and understanding the role of organizational culture are crucial factors in addressing these challenges.

Companies often face resistance from employees when implementing structural changes, as they may fear the unknown or feel threatened by the potential loss of their expertise. Effective resistance management involves open communication, employee involvement, and addressing concerns through training and support.

Additionally, organizational culture plays a significant role in shaping how employees perceive and adapt to change. Companies must assess their culture and identify any cultural barriers that may hinder the implementation of new structures.

Evolution of Organizational Forms

Companies have transitioned from centralized functional structures to more decentralized structures based on product and geographic regions. This shift in organizational forms has been driven by emerging trends in the business world.

The traditional approach of centralization by function has given way to a more flexible and adaptable approach, allowing companies to better coordinate and align their strategies. However, this transition is not without its challenges.

Coordination challenges arise when different units or regions need to work together effectively. Ensuring smooth collaboration and communication becomes crucial in these decentralized structures. Companies need to find innovative solutions to overcome these coordination challenges and create a seamless flow of information and resources across different departments and regions.

Challenges of Organizational Change

Overcoming resistance and adapting to new roles and processes can be a significant challenge during organizational change. Companies often find themselves caught up in expensive and frustrating cycles of restructuring, which can create new problems and result in the loss of valuable tacit knowledge.

Obsolete infrastructure from previous organizational decisions may also hinder effective change implementation. However, it is important to question whether structural change is the right tool for the job. Instead of searching for the perfect structure, companies can focus on choosing an organizational design that works without major conflicts.

Designing a customized strategic system, aligned with the company’s strategy, can be more effective. Successful examples of this approach exist, such as DuPont Engineering Polymers and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. By using the balanced scorecard framework, companies can align their structure with their strategy, facilitating effective change implementation and fostering innovation.

The Alternative Approach

Choosing the appropriate organizational design can lead to more successful and efficient change implementation. To implement change effectively, organizations can adopt an alternative approach that focuses on designing customized strategic systems. This approach offers several advantages for implementing change effectively:

Customized strategic systems: By designing a strategic system that aligns with the organization’s specific goals and objectives, companies can ensure that their structure supports their strategy. This customized approach allows for greater flexibility and adaptability to changing market conditions.

Improved alignment: Customized strategic systems help align different parts of the organization towards a common goal. This alignment ensures that everyone is working towards the same objectives and reduces conflicts or misunderstandings that can hinder change implementation.

Enhanced performance: By aligning the structure with the strategy, customized strategic systems create a framework for driving performance and monitoring progress. This focus on performance allows organizations to track their success and make necessary adjustments to ensure the effective implementation of change.

Importance of Strategic Themes

Senior executives play a crucial role as theme owners, coordinating and monitoring the implementation of objectives, measures, and targets within the organization’s strategic themes.

Strategic themes have become increasingly important in organizations as they communicate corporate priorities and provide clear measures and targets for managers. They link local strategies to the overall enterprise value proposition and create synergies necessary to realize it.

However, implementing strategic themes also comes with its challenges. One of the main challenges is ensuring that employees align their goals and incentives with the strategic themes. Additionally, strategic themes require careful coordination and monitoring to ensure that objectives, measures, and targets are being effectively implemented.

Despite these challenges, the benefits of strategic themes are significant. They enable communication of shared priorities, motivate employees to align their actions with corporate strategy, and create a virtual organization where decentralized units contribute to corporate priorities.

Overall, strategic themes provide a framework for testing and revising corporate strategies while driving revenue growth.

Customized Strategic Systems for Alignment

Companies can design customized strategic systems to ensure the alignment of their structure with their overall strategy. Implementing change and achieving strategic alignment are crucial for organizations that desire innovation and growth.

Here are three key considerations for designing customized strategic systems:

Identifying key strategic objectives: Companies need to clearly define their strategic objectives and ensure that their structure supports the achievement of these objectives. This involves assessing the current structure and identifying any gaps or misalignments that need to be addressed.

Redefining roles and responsibilities: To align the structure with the strategy, companies may need to redefine roles and responsibilities within the organization. This includes clarifying decision-making authority, reallocating resources, and ensuring that each role contributes to the overall strategic goals.

Implementing a performance management system: A performance management system is essential for tracking progress and ensuring accountability. Companies should establish clear metrics and targets that are aligned with the strategic objectives. Regular performance reviews and feedback mechanisms can help drive the desired change and ensure ongoing alignment.

Implementing the Balanced Scorecard Framework

The implementation of the balanced scorecard framework provides organizations with a comprehensive management system for measuring performance and driving alignment between strategic objectives and operational activities. This framework is a powerful tool for implementing change and measuring performance in innovative organizations.

By using the balanced scorecard, organizations can track key performance indicators and assess progress towards strategic goals. This allows them to make data-driven decisions and adjust their strategies and activities accordingly.

Implementing change can be a complex and challenging process, but the balanced scorecard framework provides a clear and structured approach. It enables organizations to identify areas for improvement, set targets, and monitor performance, ensuring that the changes being implemented are effective and aligned with the organization’s overall strategy.

Successful Examples of Effective Change Implementation

After discussing the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard framework, let’s explore successful examples of effective change implementation in aligning strategy and structure. These case studies serve as best practices for organizations seeking innovation and improvement.

DuPont Engineering Polymers: DuPont successfully implemented a customized strategic system to align its structure with its strategy. By designing an organizational structure that worked without major conflicts, DuPont was able to achieve its goals efficiently. This approach allowed them to effectively manage their resources and actions, resulting in increased productivity and profitability.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP): The RCMP also implemented a customized strategic system to align its structure with its strategy. By utilizing the balanced scorecard framework, the RCMP was able to communicate corporate priorities to its business and support units. This alignment facilitated synergy among decentralized units, enabling them to contribute to corporate priorities and drive revenue growth.

These successful case studies highlight the importance of choosing the right organizational structure and designing a strategic system that aligns with the overall strategy. By adopting these best practices, organizations can effectively implement change and achieve their desired outcomes.

The Role of Strategic Themes in Communication and Alignment

By utilizing strategic themes, organizations can effectively communicate corporate priorities and align their actions with the overall strategy.

Strategic themes play a crucial role in employee motivation and the impact on corporate strategy revision.

These themes provide a framework for employees to understand the organization’s goals and objectives, creating a sense of purpose and direction.

When employees are aware of the strategic themes, they can align their individual goals and actions with the larger corporate strategy.

This alignment fosters a sense of ownership and accountability, leading to increased motivation and productivity.

Furthermore, strategic themes also play a vital role in corporate strategy revision.

As organizations evolve and adapt to changing market conditions, strategic themes provide a foundation for evaluating and revising the overall strategy.

By assessing the alignment of the strategic themes with the market trends and customer demands, organizations can make informed decisions and adjust their strategy accordingly.

Coordinating and Monitoring Implementation Through Theme Owners

Theme owners have several key responsibilities in driving successful implementation of their assigned strategic theme. First, they are responsible for coordinating and monitoring the implementation of objectives, measures, and targets within their theme. This involves ensuring that resources, such as budget and personnel, are allocated appropriately to support the objectives and initiatives.

Second, theme owners are tasked with monitoring the progress of the implementation. They track the performance of the objectives, measures, and targets, and identify any deviations or challenges that may arise. This allows them to take timely corrective actions and ensure that the implementation stays on track.

Lastly, theme owners play a crucial role in facilitating collaboration and communication among different business units and teams involved in the implementation. They encourage cross-functional cooperation, knowledge sharing, and synergy, which fosters an environment of innovation and collective success.

Creating a Virtual Organization Through Strategic Themes

Strategic themes create a collaborative environment where decentralized units work together towards corporate priorities, forming a virtual organization. This concept of a virtual organization brings numerous benefits to companies seeking innovation and agility.

By aligning employees’ goals and incentives, strategic themes motivate individuals to align their actions with the corporate strategy. Furthermore, strategic themes enable the communication of shared priorities, allowing for the testing and revision of corporate strategies.

In addition to these benefits, implementing strategic themes also presents challenges. Companies may encounter difficulties in effectively coordinating and monitoring the implementation of objectives, measures, and targets. It is crucial for theme owners, assigned senior executives, to convene periodic meetings to review progress and revise action plans.

Driving Revenue Growth With a Balanced Scorecard-Based System

A balanced scorecard-based system drives revenue growth by aligning employees and their actions with corporate objectives. This system utilizes performance measures to track progress and ensure that employees are working towards the company’s goals. By aligning incentives, employees are motivated to perform at their best and contribute to the overall success of the organization.

Here are three key benefits of implementing such a system:

Improved performance: The use of performance measures allows for a clear understanding of individual and team performance, enabling employees to identify areas for improvement and take appropriate actions to drive revenue growth.

Enhanced accountability: Aligning incentives with corporate objectives ensures that employees are held accountable for their performance and rewards are tied to the achievement of desired outcomes. This creates a culture of ownership and responsibility.

Increased alignment: A balanced scorecard-based system ensures that all employees are working towards the same goals, promoting collaboration and alignment across different departments and functions. This synergy leads to improved efficiency and effectiveness in achieving revenue growth.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do legacy systems and tacit knowledge impact the process of structural change.

Legacy systems and tacit knowledge can significantly impact the process of structural change. They can be lost during restructuring, leading to costly consequences. Mitigating resistance to change and leveraging organizational culture can help address these challenges.

What Are Some Examples of New Organizational Forms That Have Emerged in Response to Changes in Competition and the Economy?

Emerging organizational forms have evolved in response to changes in competition and the economy. These include matrix organizations, process-focused units, virtual organizations, networked organizations, and the concept of the Velcro organization.

How Can Companies Avoid Getting Caught up in Expensive and Frustrating Cycles of Organizational Change?

To avoid costly mistakes, companies can implement effective change management strategies. This involves carefully assessing the need for organizational change, designing a customized approach that aligns with the strategy, and providing support and training to employees during the transition.

What Is the Role of Strategic Themes in Aligning Employees’ Goals and Incentives?

Strategic themes play a crucial role in aligning employees’ goals and incentives. They provide a framework for communicating corporate priorities and linking local strategies to the overall value proposition, motivating employees to align their actions with the corporate strategy and driving performance incentives.

How Do Strategic Themes Enable Communication of Shared Priorities and Motivate Employees to Align Their Actions With Corporate Strategy?

Strategic themes enable communication of shared priorities and motivate employees to align their actions with corporate strategy. By providing clear measures and targets, they link local strategies to the enterprise value proposition and create synergies necessary for success.

UNLOCK YOUR COPY

Advertisement

The science of organizational design: fit between structure and coordination

• Open access
• Published: 01 March 2018
• Volume 7 , article number  5 , ( 2018 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Richard M. Burton 1 &
• Børge Obel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1283-5489 2  

69k Accesses

50 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Organization design is a major factor determining an organization’s performance and how the people work together in these organizations. In the paper, we argue that designing organizations should be scientific-based and forward-looking. This raises challenges in designing organizations in contexts and situations that are new and have not been seen before. Experimentation of what is and what might be is the basis for exploring and examining what makes a good science for organizational design. Experimentation permits us to examine what might be for organization designs, which are not well understood or may not exist yet. Collaborative communities, new ventures, agile organizations, and temporary organizations are examples; experimentation permits us explore and examine what is and what might be and to examine the organizational design problem and perform experiments to understand the relationship between structure and coordination mechanisms of information, communications, decisions, trust, and incentives—the basis for the multi-contingency theory of organizational design.

An organizational design must specify the fit between the structure of division of tasks in the organization with its coordination, or how to make these tasks work in concert. These tasks can be interdependent and uncertain. To design good organizations, we need empirical evidence about what is and exploration about what might be; we need a good theoretical basis for being able to generalize our knowledge. To illustrate our point, we examine two experiments on the classic M-form hypothesis—a computer simulation that examines coordination, organization structure, and interdependency and a laboratory experiment that examines the effect of incentives on opportunism and performance. Together, we find that the M-form is a robust organizational design, but with contingent conditions.

Finally, we discuss how observation and experimentation together is the foundation for the development of scientific-based theory of organizational design.

Similar content being viewed by others

What do you mean by organizational structure? Acknowledging and harmonizing differences and commonalities in three prominent perspectives

Organization Theory

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The design of an organization has a significant impact on the performance of the organization (Doty et al. 1993 ). Thus, it is important to know how a particular organization should be designed. Van de Ven et al. 2013 state: “Much has been learned, and even more needs to be learned, about designing organizations and institutions.” Further, they urge scholars to return to the frontier of organization studies by addressing a new agenda in designing organizations with promising new research methods. Levitt ( 2012 ) suggests that future research on organization design extends the frontiers of organizational micro-contingency theory. Gulati et al. ( 2012 ), on the other hand, suggest a focus on meta-organization design where organizational design is looked upon in an inter-organizational and community context.

Do we have scientifically based knowledge that can help us design efficient and effective organizations for the future, and is there a science of organizational design? At first, it may seem that science and design are opposites and that the two are not compatible. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment, while design is a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, organization, or other object before it is made.

In this paper, we will discuss and present a science of organizational design, including a discussion of models and theories of designing organizations. We argue that experimentation of what is and what might be is the link between science and design for a science of organizational design (Burton and Obel 2011 ). We may address the issue of designing organizations by invoking new research methods and new ways of imagining possibilities. However, we should also employ our current knowledge to design new organizations for new conditions. The use of experimentation based on our current knowledge is the way to move forward. This is the only way we can generalize existing knowledge to help design organizations for the future.

The paper will also present a methodology perspective of the science of organization design. We will discuss what we have learned from the science of organization design. Building upon Simon’s book The Sciences of the Artificial (Simon 1996 ) and related notions, we develop a science of organizational design where the basic organizational design question is how to create a fit between structure and coordination. Structure is to break a big purpose or problem into smaller problems and units. The result is a set of tasks that have to be performed. The coordination is managing these smaller problems, units, and tasks into a whole so that they fit together to achieve an overall purpose. Finally, we discuss questions, which the science of organization design should address in future research.

Science and organizational design

By science, we mean knowledge and understanding about the world through observation of what is, and experimentation of “what is” and “what might be.” Design focuses on imagination and creation of what might be to achieve a purpose, moving toward “what should be” (Burton and Obel 2011 : 467).

Organizational theory provides the theoretical underpinnings for organizational design. Organization theory describes and explains for our understanding how the world works; in complement, organization design builds on this to understand how the world could possibly work. Organization theory is a positive science to explain and understand the structure, behavior, and effectiveness of an organization—what is; organizational design is a normative science to recommend what might be designs for increased effectiveness and efficiency.

According to Simon ( 1996 ), an organization is an artifact that must be created in concept before it is created in reality. Romme ( 2003 : 558), building upon Simon, argues that the “idea of a design involves inquiry into systems that do not yet exist—either complete new systems or new states of existing systems.” Organizational design is thus prescribing how an organization should be structured in order to function effectively and efficiently. Organization design is a systematic approach to aligning structures, processes, leadership, culture, people, practices, and metrics to enable organizations to achieve their mission and strategy. The basic premise is that there is no one best way of organizing and that different organizations are not equally effective or efficient (Galbraith 1973 ). This introduces the concept of contingency thinking, where the organization should be designed to fit the particular circumstance, which may be new and not experienced before.

How can we create information or knowledge about something that does not yet exist? We need knowledge-based experimentation and observation. Observation is an “as is” experiment or natural experiment where the researcher describes the “what is” situation and variations among variables that are manipulated by others or nature. Experimentation involves manipulation of variables to understand the effects.

We need to experiment to generalize from one study to another. We want to understand cause and effect in the science of organizational design through experimental manipulation of factors. There are a number of methodologies: simulation, laboratory studies, field studies, ethnographies, and large data analyses, among others (Scandura and Williams 2000 ). All utilize experimentation and observation to investigate and to understand the world of what is, as well as to explore the world of what might be.

Simulation modeling provides a powerful methodology for advancing theory and research on complex behaviors and systems (Harrison et al. 2007 ). The modeling requires current knowledge, and the simulations allow experimentation with models of new designs with full control of the setup (Burton and Obel 1995 ). Laboratory experiments introduce human behavior and require less formal modeling. Much of the power, beauty, and pleasure of models comes from inventing and elaborating models for exploring their implications in new domains (Lave and March 1975 ). This is the basis for the experimentation of what might be in a way that the results can be generalized. Many experiments are done in the real world (Puranam and Håkonsson 2015 ; Burton et al. 2017 ), but they may not be easily generalized. A triangulation approach using observation, simulation, and laboratory experiments will drive the knowledge and science of organization design forward (Burton and Obel 2011 ).

The challenge for the science of organization design is to create predictive models of future organizational designs. Prototyping new organizational designs could happen either through simulations or in the lab—with new proposed organizational arrangements being tested for unanticipated consequences before being implemented (Puranam 2012 ). Levitt ( 2012 ) states that “organizational chemistry” (goal conflict, institutional differences, etc.) and “organizational biology” (individual learning, organizational learning, evolution and regeneration of networks of organizations) will eventually yield robust and accurate enough agent-based modeling, analysis, and validation so that simulation of these phenomena will become useful to managers. This is supported by Puranam ( 2012 ) who states that we need models “which goes well beyond providing general advice to prototyping new organizational designs.”

In an analysis of novelty in forms of organizing, Puranam et al. ( 2014 ) argue that a new form is one that embodies new solutions to the basic problems of organizing—the division of labor and the integration of effort—in contrast to the solutions used by existing organizations.

An organization is a social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. All organizations have a management structure that determines relationships between the different activities and the members and subdivides and assigns roles, responsibilities, and authority to carry out different tasks. The activities must then be coordinated (Burton and Obel 2004 ) to obtain the collective goals. Structure and coordination are thus the fundamental choices in organizational design.

Structure includes the assignment of tasks to individuals or subunits, the apportionment of resources to these units, the designation of customers and markets to units, and generally the breakdown of the larger problem for smaller units. Coordination is bringing the units together through communications, IT, leadership, culture, incentives, routines and procedures, and generally what we call management (Van de Ven et al. 1976 ; Burton et al. 2015 ).

The structure and coordination choices are not independent. Once a structure is chosen, the coordination choices are limited in order to achieve a good fit. Further, coordination requires much more information processing than finding the structure, and designing the coordination has a different time perspective than designing the structure. The structure issue is a decision problem or analytical problem, while coordination is a management issue. Coordination is done in real time, as it must be done when activities are under way. But, the coordination mechanism is a design problem.

Within the framework of structure and coordination, organizational design boils down to who does what when, or how to allocate tasks, resources, customers, etc. to each of the small problems and how to coordinate these small units and tasks. This gives the framework within which experimentation should be done. However, experimentation also requires a theoretical framework with which the experimentation should be done to allow the required ability to generalize. One such framework is the information-processing paradigm.

Information processing and design

Information processing is work in modern organizations: “Who talks to whom about what, who makes which decisions based upon what information” (Marschak and Radner 1972 ). Simon ( 1967 : 1) is more succinct: Organizational design “is to investigate the information flows that are essential for accomplishing the organization’s objectives, then examine what these information patterns imply for organization structure.” A basic theory of organization design is balancing the information-processing capacity of the organization with the information-processing demand (Galbraith 1973 , 1974 ). Underlying the theory is the assumption that “the greater the task uncertainty, the greater information-processing demands by decision makers” (Galbraith 1973 , 1974 ). Further, the more interdependency between the sub-tasks, the more information-processing capacity is needed. Uncertainty and interdependency create the need for information processing in an organization.

Uncertainty has been defined as an incomplete description of the world (Arrow 1974 ), unpredictability, or perhaps more precisely as Knightian uncertainty where the probability distribution is not well defined. Further, uncertainty has included complexity or the number of variables in the environmental space (Ashby 1956 ; Burton and Obel 2004 ). Both the organization’s environment and its tasks can be uncertain. The management of environmental and organizational uncertainty requires the coordination of the organization’s tasks (Galbraith 1973 ).

Interdependency can be defined as the correlation among the variables in the environmental space or task space. Simon ( 1996 ) examines interdependencies as the degree of divisibility or decomposability using a matrix representation of the connections. The more connected or dense the matrix, the more interdependent the tasks; and the sparser the matrix entries, the less connected and the more divisible the tasks. The tasks’ interdependence may arise out the problem to be solved. It may however also be due to the particular task design, e.g., due to availability of different types of individuals to solve the task. Further, the decomposability of the matrix may be due to the basic organizational setup. Burton and Obel ( 1984 , chapter 2) show how different matrices with different degrees of decomposability arise out of different organizational structures. The interdependency determines whom in the organization talks to whom about what and when.

To balance the information-processing demand and capacity, Galbraith ( 1973 , 1974 ) offers two different organizational design strategies: reduce the need for information by creating semi-independent units (structure), or increase the information capacity with greater communications, either hierarchical or lateral (coordination). The information-processing perspective has to be seen in the particular context, e.g. digitalization, which changes both the information-processing demand and the ability to create capacity (Haußmann et al. 2012 ).

Tushman and Nadler ( 1978 ) and Burton and Obel ( 2004 ) argue that the concepts of uncertainty and information processing can be used to integrate the diverse organization design and structure literatures. They suggest a contingency approach based on the information-processing paradigm to design a feasible set of structural alternatives from which the organization can choose (Tushman and Nadler 1978 ; Burton and Obel 1995 , 2004 ). Further, the information-processing paradigm is a general theory and rather robust to changes in circumstances, and it will allow us to say something about what might be designs from knowledge about what is. The information-processing paradigm also provides basis on which generalizable experimentation and observation can be done. Information-processing thinking can capture many theoretical issues, such as bounded rationality (Van Zandt 1999 ), learning (Shiffrin and Schneider 1977 ), and cognition (Klahr and Kotovsky 2013 ).

A contingency view of organization design

Simon ( 1947 : 293) writes:

The division of labor is quite as important in organizing decision making as in organizing production. From the information-processing point of view, division of labor means factoring the total system of decisions that need to be made into relatively independent subsystems, each one of which can be designed with only minimal concern for its interactions with the others. The division is necessary because the processors that are available to organizations, whether humans or computers, are very limited in their processing capacity in comparison with the magnitude of the decision problems that organizations face.

How should the big task be structured or partitioned, and what resources should be allocated to the particular task? For example, deciding between a functional and divisional structure is choosing the basis for breaking up the big task. Then you must choose how many departments or divisions you would like to have. For the divisional structure, you can choose to allocate private customers to one division and corporate customers to another, or you can base your divisions on types of products. Concurrent with the structure, you have made a choice of how to coordinate. Coordination mechanisms require information, communications, cooperation, decisions, rules, routines, trust, incentives, and leadership, among others.

Thompson ( 1967 ) analyzes the organization in terms of uncertainty and technology or work flows of pooled, sequential, and reciprocal relations. Miles and Snow ( 1978 ) analyze the design problem in terms of structure and process and develop a typology of four organizational prototypes based on a particular choice of strategy. Lawrence and Lorsch ( 1967 ) use the concept’s differentiation and integration, which are similar to structure and coordination, and develop a contingency theory based on the particular type of environment. These approaches are single-contingency theories.

Using the information-processing concept, Burton and Obel ( 2004 ) developed the multi-contingency theory of organizational design and further developed these concepts in Burton et al. ( 2015 ). This view says that an organization’s design should be chosen based on the particular context and further that the description of the context should be multi-dimensional, including both structural and human components. Structural components of organizational design include goals, strategy, and structure and tasks. Human components include leadership, work processes, and people. Coordination includes control systems, decision systems, information systems, and incentive mechanisms.

In the multi-contingency theory, the relationships between structural, human, and coordination components are represented as a series of interconnected design rules. Design rules are “what should be” relationships (Burton et al. 2002 ). They incorporate both feasibility of “what might be” and desirability for the organization. The development of design rules has originally been related to simple design rules focusing on one or a limited set of contingencies, such as Lawrence and Lorsch ( 1967 ) on the relationship between environment and organizational design, or Woodward ( 1965 ) on technology and organizational design. These design rules were based on observation of what is. Later, these simple design rules have been combined into a set of more complex design rules (Burton and Obel 2004 ).

Design rules can be based upon “what is,” using the logic that what has been successful in the past in somewhat similar conditions is likely to work for the future—even applied in circumstances going beyond what has been observed. Design rules can also be developed based on the theory of balancing the information-processing capacity with information-processing demand. Further experimentation using simulations, laboratory studies, and empirical research are the basis for design rules (Burton and Obel 2013 ).

Experimentation and the science of organization design

Experimentation and simulation can be the basis for theory development (Davis et al. 2007 ). An experiment is a test, trial, or tentative procedure—an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle or supposition. Experiments provide insight into cause and effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Empirical studies evaluate what is, while simulation and experimentation can help in finding what might be and what should be.

Experimentation requires a theoretical basis and an experimental setup, and models can be of the organization system or of the agents in the system. Models of the system include system dynamic models (Lomi et al. 1997 ; Klaas 2004 ) as well as mathematical programming models (Burton and Obel 1984 ). Agent-based modeling is a relational, bottom-up understanding of organizations as ongoing processes arising out of individual and group decisions (Rivkin and Siggelkow 2003 ). Further, it can be based on interaction between “agents.” Levitt et al. ( 1999 ) developed a model that extends and operationalizes Galbraith’s ( 1973 ) information-processing view of organizations. The model allows for simulation of the micro-level information processing, communication, and coordination behavior of participants/agents in a project organization.

Most simulations of organization design are computer-based, some are laboratory experiments with humans as the agents (Håkonsson et al. 2016 ), while others are mixed, and some agents being computer agents and others being individuals (Burton and Obel 1988 ). Models of social and economic organizations based on the interaction between agents are becoming more common (Davis et al. 2007 ; Harrison et al. 2007 ).

This stream of research has developed an integrated multi-contingency theory utilizing theory development, laboratory experiments, simulation, and empirical analysis together for deeper understanding of contingency theory for organization design—a scientific approach to organization design. The work has thus contributed to the theory of organizational design as well as the extension of triangulation as a research design. Further, a forward-looking perspective of organizational design has been argued (Burton and Obel 2011 , 2013 ).

Experimentation and design of structure: the example of the M-form hypothesis

The M-form, or multidivisional form, is widely utilized in industry. It is structured by product, customer, or country. Early on, Chandler ( 1962 ), in his study of large American corporations, described how the M-form worked and how it was efficient as adopted by General Motors and DuPont. Both corporations were able to coordinate production and customer needs more efficiently and effectively. Later, Williamson ( 1975 , p. 150) presented an economic-reasoned argument in support and formalized the M-form hypothesis:

The organization and operation of the large enterprise along the lines of the M-form favors goal pursuit and least-cost behavior more nearly associated with the neoclassical profit maximization hypothesis than does the U-form (or functional form) organizational alternative.

The M-form is structured around demands in the market, where the U-form is structured around production, sales, finance, human resources, and perhaps other specializations.

In the 80s, Burton and Obel did a series of simulation studies to investigate contingency theory concepts related to the M-form hypothesis with the purpose of developing a more elaborate set of design rules. Using parsimonious models, they conducted an experimental design to test performance consequences of various coordination mechanisms, including the budget versus pricing planning systems and different organizational information systems (Burton and Obel 1980a ). Then they investigated the M-form hypothesis (vs. U-form) for different levels of decomposable technologies (Burton and Obel 1980b , 1984 ) using the same experimental design. The results of the experiments confirmed the M-form hypothesis: The M-form is generally more efficient than the U-form, but with some conditions. Comparing the M-form and the U-form, the M-form does better for both low and high interdependency tasks, but the coordination mechanism is an important factor. The M-form allocation works very well for less interdependency and an iterative price coordination mechanism, while the U-form works well for a centralized coordination mechanism. Steer and Cable ( 1978 ) found that the U-form can be more efficient when centralized control is utilized, which is more prevalent in small firms. Size is not the main issue, but control and coordination are. For an organizational design, the choice of the structure and the coordination mechanism are not independent. The M-form design hypothesis is a contingent statement depending upon the task interdependency and the coordination mechanism, not a universal one. The experiment included two that might be alternatives. The M-form did not perform well for a less decomposable task, and the U-form did not perform well for a highly decomposable structure. We seldom observe these designs as natural experiments in the real world, and for good reason as indicated by the experiment. This experiment included both an examination of the M-form hypothesis, but also investigation of what might be design alternatives.

Further, in the M-form, a non-optimal allocation of resources to a division does not yield large opportunity losses if these resources are used well within each division, i.e., the intra-divisional coordination is done well. In the U-form, if the coordination is not done well, e.g., when the sales department and the production department do not use the same quantities, the opportunity losses are quite high. A transfer pricing mechanism can yield large losses if the price is not optimal. Stated differently as implications for organizational design, good coordination is more important than good structure or resource allocation.

In a later laboratory experiment, Burton and Obel ( 1988 ) included opportunism, which Williamson defines as self-interest seeking with guile (1975: 26). In the experiment, opportunism arises when an M-form division or U-form function manager can request non-optimal quantities from the headquarters that enhance her own divisional or functional performance at the expense of other divisions or functions and the overall firm performance.

For the U-form design alternative, the experiment found incentive schemes based on functional profit to be inefficient, while the U-form worked better for an incentive scheme based on corporate profit. The M-form alternatives were, however, both slightly better than the best U-form alternative, given the particular situation. The discussions about opportunistic behavior and different kinds of hierarchies are an ongoing debate (Foss and Weber 2016 ).

What are the implications for the M-form design hypothesis? First, individuals quickly understood that opportunism is possible, and if it was to their personal advantage to report non-optimal quantity to manipulate the prices and thus enhance their own profits at the expense of others and the firm overall. Second, individuals understood in which direction to change the quantities in their own favor. Thirdly, would they behave opportunistically? Not all did; most did, but more cheated in the U-form than in the M-form. In short, an individual will understand the opportunity to cheat; he or she will know how to cheat; and most individuals will cheat, but not all. Some are altruistic. Thus, the M-form design is less compromised than the U-form design when opportunism is invoked.

Under opportunism, the M-form performed much better than the U-form for corporate profits (Burton and Obel 1988 : 111). The opportunity losses in the U-form were more severe than in the M-form—confirming the M-form design hypothesis. Again, coordination losses were more serious than loss due to structure, which confirms that good coordination is more important than good structure.

Putting the various experiments together, the M-form design hypothesis is supported without opportunism, and it is strengthened when opportunism is present. First, the M-form is confirmed parsimoniously using minimal information-processing mechanisms. Second, when the manipulation of information is possible, the M-form hypothesis is strengthened. Resource allocation is less important than coordination under decentralization with opportunism and without opportunism. Experimentation allowed a finer grained set of design rules than the rules only developed out of economic theory and empirical observations.

Design rules are “if-then” heuristics, which guide thoughtful guidance for what might be. Burton and Obel ( 2013 ) developed design rules based upon the M-form hypotheses and the experiments above:

If the task is nearly decomposable, then the divisional or M-form is superior to the unitary or functional form (p. 226),

The degree of decomposability is primary contingency for this rule. A corollary design rule is then:

If the task in not decomposable, then coordination is the main issue and can be realized with a unitary or functional form with a centralized coordination.

A design rule, which emerges directly from the opportunism lab experiment is:

If the organization has a unitary or functional form, then a unit profit scheme should not be used.

In the experiment, this incentive scheme is very likely to yield cheating with very high opportunity losses. What are the risk implications, if coordination is not achieved as desired? The M-form suffers less opportunity loss than the unitary form. That is, less risk is incurred with the M-form than the unitary form.

If the designer is risk averse, then the M-form organization is preferred.

There are many other design rules to state and develop.

A formal rule-based multi-contingency theory of organization (Burton and Obel 2004 ) was developed based on empirical observations, the information-processing theory, and simulation and laboratory experiments. The multi-contingency theory model was tested on an empirical basis using the survey methodology, and it was shown that misfits in the model led to significant loss in performance. Not only the main effects but also the interaction effects were shown to be important (Burton et al. 2002 ). Further studies then investigated specific interaction effects between leadership, climate, and strategy (Burton et al. 2004 ; Håkonsson et al. 2008 , 2012 ). Not only are the interactions important, but there are asymmetric effects such that the misfit effects in dynamic situations are much more important than in non-dynamic situations (Håkonsson et al. 2012 ). Examining business-unit adaptation through new-product introductions in the global mobile device industry, Gaba and Joseph ( 2013 ) find that business-unit responses to poor performance lead to greater new product introductions. Taken together, these results were further expanded into a diamond model of contingency fit (Burton et al. 2011 ; Burton et al. 2015 ).

Organizational design as the science of experimentation

Van de Ven et al. ( 2013 ) state that there is much more to learn about designing organizations and institutions. We have argued that experimentation is at the heart of the organizational design challenge. Experimentation permits us to investigate both what is and what might be—the latter being the fundamental for design. Design requires the specification of both the assignment of tasks to units and individuals and the coordination of these tasks through communications, IT, leadership, culture, incentives, and management. Coordination is necessary, as the tasks are interdependent and uncertain, and the organization exists in an uncertain environment. At a fundamental level, this is the organizational design problem. However, each organization must be designed to meet specific situations and goals.

Simulation has been used to investigate many organizational design issues in what-might-be situations. Rivkin and Siggelkow ( 2003 ) investigated the conventional wisdom that firm-wide incentives and capable subordinates make top-level oversight less valuable. They further identified circumstances in which vertical hierarchies can lead to inferior long-term performance.

Their results can be stated as design rules, and one of which is:

If the competitive landscape shifts, then decentralize temporarily (Burton and Obel 2013 , p. 237).

Levinthal et al. ( 2017 ) model and simulate governance issues in multi-authority, single authority, and autonomous organizations. Lee et al. ( 2015 ) introduce computational designs and evaluations of alternative organizational structures for disaster responses to resolve the disconnections between resource demands and supplies.

Next, we outline a few challenges where we do not have well-established design rules. These challenges can be addressed through experimentation of what might be.

Collaborative communities do not have a strong hierarchy, but they do have agents or individuals who interact and follow protocols on a “commons” to achieve individual goals. Fjeldstad et al. ( 2012 ) develop an architecture of collaborative communities, but we do not have detailed design rules. Since collaborative communities are rare in the business world, we have more to learn about how to design them and make them work. We suggest that the collaborative community is a very important new organizational form for which what might be simulations hold great promise.

Platform and digital confederations of firms which are neither market nor hierarchy but use extensive contracts are becoming more common. Platform firms can be very small but have enormous reach beyond their own employees and resources. They are a nexus of formal and informal contracts—going beyond the make-buy problem. At the same time, platform-based firms can be very large, such as Amazon with some 500,000 employees. These firms are going forth as natural experiments exploring what might be and making what might have been yesterday into what is today.

How do we design temporary organizations that start up quickly and disband quickly? These are related to big construction projects as building a bridge, making a movie, or organizing the Rolling Stones World Tour. Some are informal, without structure and coordination norms but with well-defined goals of success. How are the fundamentals of task assignment and coordination realized? Does opportunism enter, and if so, how?

Entrepreneurial ventures and start-ups are not well understood from an organizational design point of view. Are they different from traditional firms in allocation and coordination? Can they thrive without a hierarchy (Burton et al. 2017 )? What is fundamental; what is new?

There is a call for agile organization today. What does this mean—quick response or adjustment to variation in the environment or technology? These are old questions, but they take on new dimensions in the digital world of today. They may require organizational designs that are quite different from traditional ones, which could and did response to variations in a slower world. Is time a critical difference here?

Conclusions

Design and experimentation are moving ahead as natural experiments that explore a portion of the “what might be” space. We are observing closely for insights and understanding. We need to go further to expand the design space and investigate the underlying mechanisms of structure and coordination through experimentation utilizing lab studies, simulations, field studies, and ethnographies, among other approaches. Romme ( 2003 : 558) stated that the “idea of a design involves inquiry into systems that do not yet exist—either complete new systems or new states of existing systems.” Experimentation is at the heart of the science of organizational design.

Without a science of organizational design, we cannot generalize and use our accumulated knowledge to be able to design effective and efficient organizations that serve their purposes well.

Arrow K (1974) The limits of organization. W. W. Norton, New York

Google Scholar  

Ashby WR (1956) An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman and Hall, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Burton RM, Håkonsson DD, Nickerson J, Puranam P, Workiewicz M, Zenger T (2017) GitHub: exploring the space between boss-less and hierarchical forms of organizing. J Organ Des 6(1):10

Burton RM, Obel B (1980a) The efficiency of the price, budget, and mixed approaches under varying a priori information levels for decentralized planning. Manag Sci 26(4):401–417

Article   Google Scholar  

Burton RM, Obel B (1980b) A computer simulation test of the M-form hypothesis. Adm Sci Q 25(3):457–466

Burton RM, Obel B (1984) Designing efficient organizations: modelling and experimentation. North Holland, Amsterdam, p 224

Burton RM, Obel B (1988) Opportunism, incentives, and the M-form hypothesis: a laboratory study. J Econ Behav Organ 10:99–119

Burton RM, Obel B (1995) The validity of computational models in organization science: from model realism to purpose of the model. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(1):57–71

Burton RM, Obel B (2004) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: developing theory for application, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

Burton RM, Obel B (2011) Computational modeling for what-is, what-might-be, and what-should-be studies—and triangulation. Organ Sci 22(5):1195–1202

Burton RM, Obel B (2013) Design rules for dynamic organization design. In: Grandori A (ed) Handbook of economic organization. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northamptoen, pp 223–224

Burton RM, Obel B, DeSanctis G (2011) Organizational design: a step-by-step approach, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Burton RM, Obel B, Håkonsson D (2015) Organizational design: a step-by-step approach, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Burton RM, Obel B, Lauridsen J (2002) Return on assets loss from situational and contingency misfits. Manag Sci 48(11):1461–1485

Burton RM, Obel B, Lauridsen J (2004) The impact of organizational climate and strategic fit on firm performance. Hum Resour Manag 43(1):67–82

Chandler A (1962) Strategy and structure. MIT Press, Cambridge

Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad Manag Rev 32(2):480–499

Doty DH, Glick WH, Huber GP (1993) Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories. Acad Manag J 36(6):1196–1250

Fjeldstad ØD, Snow CC, Miles RE, Lettl C (2012) The architecture of collaboration. Strateg Manag J 33(6):734–775

Foss NJ, Weber L (2016) Moving opportunism to the back seat: bounded rationality, costly conflict, and hierarchical forms. Acad Manag Rev 41(1):61–79

Gaba V, Joseph J (2013) Corporate structure and performance feedback: aspirations and adaptation in M-form firms. Organ Sci 24(4):1102–1119

Galbraith JR (1973) Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston

Galbraith JR (1974) Organization design: an information processing view. Interfaces 4(3):28–37

Gulati R, Puranam P, Tushman M (2012) Meta-organization design: rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strateg Manag J 33(6):571–586

Håkonsson DD, Burton R, Obel B, Lauridsen J (2008) How failure to align climate and leadership style affects performance. Manag Decis 46(3):406–432

Håkonsson DD, Burton RM, Obel B, Lauridsen J (2012) Strategy implementation requires the right executive style: evidence from Danish SMEs. Long Range Plan 45(2–3):182–208

Håkonsson DD, Eskildsen JK, Argote L, Mønster D, Burton RM, Obel B (2016) Exploration versus exploitation: emotions and performance as antecedents and consequences of team decisions. Strateg Manag J 37(6):985–1001

Harrison JR, Lin Z, Carroll GR, Carley KM (2007) Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1229–1245

Haußmann C, Dwivedi YK, Venkitachalam K, Williams MD (2012) A summery and review of Galbraith’s organizational information processing theory. In: Dwivedi YK, Wade MR, Schneberger SL (eds) Information systems theory: explaining and predicting our digital society, vol vol. 2. Springer, New York, pp 71–93

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Klaas P (2004) Towards a concept of dynamic fit in contingency theory. In: Proceedings of the 2004 System Dynamics Conference, pp 25–29

Klahr D, Kotovsky K (eds) (2013) Complex information processing: the impact of Herbert A. Simon. Psychology Press, Hove

Lave CA, March JG (1975) An introduction to models in the social sciences. Harper & Row, New York

Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment. Irwin, Homewood

Lee GH, Bae JW, Oh N, Hong JH, Moon IC (2015) Simulation experiment of disaster response organizational structures with alternative optimization techniques. Soc Sci Comput Rev 33(3):343–371

Levinthal, D. A., M. Workiewicz, and C. Pontoise. When two bosses are better than one: decomposable systems and organizational adaptation. Working paper (2017)

Levitt RE (2012) The virtual design team: designing project organizations as engineers design bridges. J Organ Des 1(2):14–41

Levitt RE, Thomsen J, Christiansen TR, Kunz JC, Jin Y, Nass C (1999) Simulating project work processes and organizations: toward a micro-contingency theory of organizational design. Manag Sci 45(11):1479–1495

Lomi A, Larsen ER, Ginsberg A (1997) Adaptive learning in organizations: a system dynamics-based exploration. J Manag 23(4):561–582

Marschak J, Radner R (1972) Economic theory of teams. Yale University Press, New Haven

Miles R, Snow C (1978) Organizational strategy, structure, and process. McGraw-Hill, New York

Puranam P (2012) A future for the science of organization design. J Organ Des 1(1):18–19

Puranam P, Alexy O, Reitzig M (2014) What’s “new” about new forms of organizing? Acad Manag Rev 39(2):162–180

Puranam P, Håkonsson DD (2015) Valve’s way. J Organ Des 4(2):2–4

Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Manag Sci 49(3):290–311

Romme AGL (2003) Making a difference: organization as design. Organ Sci 14(5):558–573

Scandura TA, Williams EA (2000) Research methodology in management: current practices, trends, and implications for future research. Acad Manag J 43(6):1248–1264

Shiffrin RM, Schneider W (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychol Rev 84(2):127

Simon HA (1947) Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making process in administrative organization. Free Press, New York, p 259

Simon HA (1967) The business school a problem in organizational design. J Manag Stud 4(1):1–16

Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge

Steer PS, Cable JR (1978) Internal organization and profit: an empirical analysis of large UK companies. J Ind Econ 27(1):13–30

Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in action. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Tushman ML, Nadler DA (1978) Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design. Acad Manag Rev 3(3):613–624

Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig R Jr (1976) Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Sociol Rev 41(2):322–338

Van de Ven AH, Ganco M, Hinings CB (2013) Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs. Acad Manag Ann 7(1):393–440

Van Zandt T (1999) Real-time decentralized information processing as a model of organizations with boundedly rational agents. Rev Econ Stud 66(3):633–658

Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. The Free Press, New York

Woodward J (1965) Industrial organization: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Download references

There is no funding for this paper.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Richard M. Burton

ICOA, Department of Management, Aarhus University, Fuglesangs Alle 4, DK-8210, Aarhus V, Denmark

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Each author has contributed equally to this paper. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard M. Burton .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Burton, R.M., Obel, B. The science of organizational design: fit between structure and coordination. J Org Design 7 , 5 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0029-2

Download citation

Received : 11 September 2017

Accepted : 20 February 2018

Published : 01 March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41469-018-0029-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Organizational Design Problem
• Collaborative Community
• Coordination Mechanisms
• Opportunity Loss
• Design Rules
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Event Driven Advisory
• Strategic Portfolio Management
• Value Capture
• Strategy and Net Zero
• Financial Services
• Consumer, Health and Wellness
• Industrial Products and Services

• © 2024 Marakon
• Privacy Statement
• Modern Slavery Act Statement

Structure Is Strategy — Gaining Strategic Advantage Through Organizational Design

Industry: Financial Services, Energy, Consumer, Health and Wellness, Industrial Products and Services

Gaining Strategic Advantage through Organizational Design

One of the biggest challenges facing modern corporations is ensuring that business strategy and organizational design are tightly aligned. Conventional wisdom suggests that it is critically important to decide the enterprise strategy first and then re-align the organization to deliver on it. Reality is quite different.

Structure defines organizational boundaries for where and how value is managed and delivered. It not only dictates accountabilities and responsibilities, but, by definition, structure provides the units by which a company’s financial and human resources are allocated. Therefore, structure is one of the key levers that chief executives can use to successfully manage the value of their businesses and best gain or leverage their competitive advantage.

Value exemplars often use organizational design to gain strategic advantages and help deliver consistent, superior returns to shareholders. For these companies, structure does not follow strategy — structure is strategy.

The following case studies demonstrate how structure and strategy are inextricably intertwined. The lesson to be learned in these examples is that there should be no such a thing as “an industry standard” organizational design because adhering to any standard structure may mean missing a hidden source of competitive advantage. A distinctive design can give your business a unique edge in the marketplace.

Flexible Structures Produce Flexible Strategies

Companies that organize around functions tend to develop functional and fixed strategies. Likewise, companies that organize around geographies tend to develop fixed geographic strategies. Beyond the lack of flexibility, both are easy to copy by competitors and will likely prevent the execution of distinctive strategies and performance in the long run.

One of the world’s best performing natural resources companies created a unique organizational structure that combines the advantages of small business units and “virtual structure” — groupings of small business units that can address different strategic issues and competitive environments.

Each of the 100-plus business units includes a small team with accountability for strategy, resources, and performance. This enables the CEO and his management team to push accountability for value as close as possible to the “coalface”, where value is actually created or destroyed. Moreover, there are no layers between these business units and the CEO and his team. The result: clear lines of sight for all managers.

Some of these business units are also grouped in a virtual structure. Some groupings share collective accountability for managing the value of the company’s relationship with a global customer group. Other groupings have a similar collective accountability for a global supplier group or a strategy in a common geography (see Exhibit 1).

These virtual business units are able to tackle corporate strategic issues that the operational business units couldn’t address on their own without creating new layers of bureaucracy that too often become permanent. Moreover, because they are virtual, these larger groupings of business units can be reorganized in many different ways, as often as needed, to meet the company’s changing priorities as they evolve. This gives the company enormous capacity to respond effectively to an ever-moving agenda and competitive environment.

This flexible structure leads to better strategies. For example, by organizing four of its business units into a virtual unit operating in a common region, the company was able to identify and capture $800 million of value creation. Their  unique structure provided a better understanding  of how the region’s transportation economics could be dramatically improved by taking an enterprise- wide point of view across all operating units in the region. The competition could not see these opportunities because their organizational structures were defined by line of business, not region.

Innovative Global/Local Structures Provide Clearer Decision Rights and Better Strategies

Multinational organizations face strategic issues that are specific to particular local markets as well as those that affect many local markets at once. If you organize around global lines of business, you miss the former. If you organize around local markets, you miss the latter. If you organize around both, you create a matrix where dual responsibilities and reporting lines all too frequently result in a situation where no one is truly accountable for the value of anything.

A leading business school, with multiple campuses worldwide, wanted to build on its strategy to be the global leader in business education. To deliver on its ambitious strategy, the school had identified a number of issues the organizational model should address. First, it required a more effective regional leadership model to translate its multiregional presence into stronger connections with business and academic communities and greater success in fundraising and executive education. Second, the new structure had to address an increasing  tension between the business model (reliant on executive education) and the talent model (focused on academic excellence and research). The school addressed the challenges by creating both global program directors and local market representatives where the local chairs would have primarily external responsibilities, such as building connectivity and relevance with the local community. Local chairs would also function as “the glue in the matrix,” providing input into strategy, fundraising, executive education, and academic affairs. To ensure successful strategy development and execution, both globally and locally, it was essential to clearly define decision rights. The organization used the principles behind the RACI framework (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed) to ensure clarity of the local responsibilities and accountabilities while maintaining the global linkages through consultation and information flow around key activities and decision points.

What makes this business school’s solution distinctive is not so much that it took a particular structural approach to designing the matrix. The school successfully assigned well-defined accountabilities and responsibilities for managing the matrix as a whole along different dimensions aligned with its strategic objectives. This ability to manage the matrix and address the global/local tension is critical to delivering the strategy itself. Their approach also greatly helped define the required capabilities for key leadership positions, thereby better aligning the business and talent model.

The Matrix Becomes Manageable Using Global Standards with Local Adaptability

The global/local challenge is relevant to many companies. And virtually every company has a matrix, whether it chooses to organize that way or not.

One of the world’s most profitable retailers addressed their global/local challenge by creating both global category and local market business units. While each business unit is accountable for its end-to-end value creation, it is also assigned specific “decision responsibilities” related to the levers it alone can pull to maximize end-to-end value of the overall business (see Exhibit 2).

The result is dramatically improved global and local strategies because each business unit can respond much faster to both local market and global category issues. For example, a price- based competitor in one local market was countered by selectively shifting certain key levers of pricing to local management. Strategic thrusts became more sophisticated as the company combined global category and local market intelligence. For example, a new premium range was launched only in prime central city sites instead of nationwide.

Instead of focusing on revenues and costs they alone can control, business unit management teams now focus on how to drive the end-to-end economics of the total business. This encourages a high level of global/local coordination without the need for coordinating bureaucracy. This focus also tempers line managers’ common concerns about performance shortfalls arising in areas outside their control.

When Value Drivers Dictate Interdependent Structure, Process Can Fill the Blind Spot

Value centers are often designed around the idea of independence where units have distinct strategies, customers, offerings, and economics. Cost centers are often designed around the idea of dependence where units exist only to serve the value centers. When there is inter-dependence between business units, the solutions are less clear.

A leading UK insurance company was struggling to address the inherent inter-dependency between its back book of pension policies and customers and its forward book of new products and customers. At first glance, the back book and forward book would seem highly connected. After all, the entire back book is simply customers the firm acquired in years past and the front book is just new customers being acquired today. However, as regulations adjust over time and create changes in product offerings, bulk customer acquisitions are made, and new systems are implemented then the company ends up with two very different businesses. The back book business is focused on managing legacy business through cost management, persistency, and buying closed books.

Meanwhile, the front book business is focused on recruiting and managing new customers through innovation, product design, marketing, CRM, pricing, and distribution. And even though these two “businesses” have very different value drivers, they share core inter-dependencies. For example, the customers in the back book are in fact one of the core sources of value for the front book as the back book pensions roll over into a set of de- accumulation products — a main focus for the front book business. On one hand, keeping the business combined in a single operating unit risks asking one set of managers to run two very different businesses and thus lose the strategic focus of pure play competitors. On the other hand, separating the businesses risks leaving significant value on the table — as the back book customers leave the franchise at the point of rollover.

Exhibit 3 – Financial Services Company: Better Structure Making Better Strategies Happen

The insurance company was able to achieve both independence and dependence by letting the value driver dictate structure and establish a clear process and set of tools to fill the blind spot. Two separate units were created with their own set of objectives, targets, and skills aligned with the value drivers of the underlying business yet the embedded common customer base was freely accessible to the front book through a process bridge. Incentives were put in place whereby the front business got access to the back book customer base at a heavy discount to the true market price for customer acquisition, while the back book business received a “fee” for each customer that was converted into a new front book customer. Internally the costs and revenue were a zero sum, but the franchise received the benefit of maintaining a very high rate of internal vestings and was able to use structure as a means to gain a heightened degree of strategic focus — by organizing its “inter-dependent” businesses to maintain a sharper focus on the value drivers embedded in its franchise. The new structure enabled a fundamental shift in strategy for each of the two units.

Better Structures Make Better Strategies Happen  

In practical terms, strategy emerges and evolves as a consequence of the hundreds of decisions managers make every day. Since structure critically influences the way managers view their competitive environment, it inevitably affects their decisions, and, in turn, influences their emergent strategies.

Take the case of the CEO of a leading financial services company who restructured his organization every 18 months over a period of five years and achieved a 30% annual total shareholder return.

The ability to rapidly create new structures turns out to be a competitive advantage — enabling organizational focus on the right issues at the right time across customers, products, and channels. This ability to renew and evolve strategic focus through organizational design keeps the management teams focused, invigorated, and consistently ahead of the competition. Structure has become a way for the chief executive to focus the organization on key  business issues and allow his leaders to develop strategies to address these issues. To achieve this, a senior executive is made profit-accountable for each business issue. These executives are charged with delivering substantial performance enhancement from resolving the issue. A supporting business unit is then created to ensure that the strategy is effectively executed.

The organization evolves in harmony with the developing agenda (see Exhibit 3). As soon as one issue is resolved, another emerges and the company’s structure transforms to reflect the new set of priorities. As the financial services company’s priorities changed from merging multiple banks to cost reduction to customer profitability, so did the organization’s structure.

Better Structures Produce Better Managers

There are two extremes when answering the “people question” while building an organization. The first is to “organize the staff” — designing the organization to suit the talent you have. The other is to “staff the organization” — finding the best people to address the key challenges facing the organization.

In reality, the answer is to do both. Organize yourself to develop the talent you need to compete in the markets you serve. If you want to develop more managers who can manage for value, create a lot of opportunities for them to do so. Managers with unique talents for discovering and developing new customer groups — or creating and executing new strategies — don’t happen by chance. They emerge when there’s an organizational structure in place that allows them — and challenges them — to refine and perfect their craft.

Structure Is Strategy

Every business should be organized to exploit what’s unique about its markets, products, and people. If your structure is similar to your competitors’, your ability to develop distinctive strategies is almost inevitably blunted. Distinctive strategies require distinctive structure.

You will know that your structure is distinctive when it consistently allows you to outclass your competitors at uncovering strategic insights, when it effortlessly manages both the global and local dimensions of your business, when your organization quickly adjusts its focus to the right strategic issue at the right time, and, most importantly, when the CEO can say that his or her management team is working at the peak of its game. Then you’ll know your distinct structure is your winning strategy.

* Re-edited and updated from original Marakon Commentary © Marakon 1999

• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Pinterest
• Share through Email

Organizational Design: An Expert’s Guide

Beth is a learning and talent expert and ICF certified coach. She has spent the past 15+ years helping companies to leverage people growth to drive business results. She’s the Principal and Founder of Beth Messich Coaching and Consulting.

Organizational design is much more than just restructuring. Follow this guide to help you optimize your org design to better meet your strategic goals.

Organizational design is a comprehensive process that aims to optimize and align multiple facets of an organization including functions, processes, and structure.

Many organizations focus on changing the structure (essentially the organizational chart) without truly redesigning the organization.

As we’ll discuss, a global retailer I worked for approached it this way and it resulted in a lot of issues.

Here I’ll share what organizational design is, some best practices, and a process to help you get it right.

What Is Organizational Design?

Organizational design (sometimes org design or OD) is a methodology for identifying multiple aspects of an organization (e.g. mission, workflow, strategy) and then aligning or realigning them to meet organizational goals in the current business environment.

It is often triggered by significant internal or external changes including:

• Shifts to the company mission or strategy
• Environmental disruption (ex: risks driven by climate change) 
• Advances in technology (ex: increased automation)
• New competitors
• Legislative changes
• Significant changes to business results (positive or negative)
• New leadership.

True org design aims to optimize the functions, processes, and company structure to achieve business results .

A well-designed organization can adapt to change, collaborate cross-functionally, make and execute decisions effectively, and nurture a positive working environment.

Often, people mistake org design for redesigning the org structure with their org chart tools . 

In reality, the outcome of the OD process is a series of recommendations that can be quite broad and include things like organizational structure , technology needs, compensation model updates, and policy changes.

Potential positive outcomes from these recommendations include:

• Improved profitability
• Increased employee engagement
• Strong employee retention and career pathing
• Better products and services
• Increased customer acquisition and/or loyalty
• Better preparation for future change and growth.

HR’s Role In Leading The Org Design Process

HR plays a crucial role in org design. In companies with OD professionals on staff, they’ll lead the process and act as both experts and project managers. In companies without OD partners, the HR business partners are commonly tasked with this work.

Often the biggest challenge teams face is guiding business leaders to support and participate in a complete org design process and not just jump to create new org charts. 

They also need to balance an approach that is both business and people-focused. 

Organization Design Principles

Before starting your org design process, it’s helpful to first ground yourself and your team in a  few key principles: 

Business alignment first, structure last

Learn from the past but don’t be tied to it, aim to retain top talent but don’t design around them, design for flexibility, design for clarity.

Because people mistakenly use “org design” and “org structure” interchangeably, they often want to start with structure. Structure is an outcome —it’s one of the ways that you will help to bring the design to life.

Business alignment is the most comprehensive and important part of the org design process because it sets the foundation for all of the design choices–including structure–you will make.

Get weekly insights and how-tos on leadership and HR’s biggest and most pressing topics—right to your inbox.

• Your email *
• By submitting this form, you agree to receive our newsletter, and occasional emails related to People Managing People. You can unsubscribe at any time. For more details, please review our privacy policy . We're protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

While it’s helpful to review past org designs for lessons learned, keep in mind that you’re designing your organization for your needs today and what you anticipate in the future. 

Things that may have been true in the past may no longer apply (e.g. too many layers were unhelpful when we started; now that we have doubled in size we are finding that we’re too flat).

Talent is a huge investment and can be a competitive advantage. While retention is important, designing an org around a few people does not serve anyone well. 

If any of those people leave, you may find that you are left with an org that no longer makes sense.

Business can be impacted by conditions beyond our control. While no one can predict the future, creating a design that allows for things like career pathing, new technologies, and continual learning will allow for the org to flex with change without the need for a full redesign.

In a strong org design, people understand their roles. They know where they fit into the big picture and understand what they are accountable for. 

Decision rights are commonly known and people are aware of how information flows in the organization.

6-Step Org Design Process: Setting The Foundation Through Business Alignment 

Thorough business alignment is the foundation for successful org design. It’s how we assess whether or not a company is set up to deliver on its strategic goals. 

Alignment is a multi-step process. You first need to ground yourself in some core tenets of the business and then do some information gathering.

Examine the mission, vision, and values

The mission, vision, and values shape the purpose and the goals of the strategic plan. They inform things like performance standards, metrics, and behavioral expectations.

Not all companies have all three–or they may have something similar like a purpose statement.

• Mission = what we do (tactical)
• Vision = what we will do (aspirational)
• Values = how we do it (behavioral)

By examining the mission, vision, and values, you will be able to identify things like the type of experience or training teams need; process, practice, or technology needs; and infrastructure needed now to deliver in the long term.

Review the strategy

When reviewing the strategy, you need to examine both the strategic plan and yearly goals. 

The strategic plan outlines the long-term objectives of the organization while yearly goals outline the more immediate objectives. 

Yearly goals should ladder up in some way to the strategic plan. If they don’t, you will need to address that with the senior leadership team before moving forward with your design.

In addition to understanding the strategy, try to identify the desired performance outcomes, the resources (financial, headcount, or otherwise) needed, and the gap between the current state and the desired future state. This will inform your design recommendations.

Gather information

You need some additional information before you can move forward. This includes both formal or tangible and informal or intangible information. 

While it’s tempting to focus on the formal, the informal is just as if not more important .

Formal information includes things like decision-making processes, compensation and rewards structures, communication channels (town halls, e-newsletters, etc.), current hierarchies, and team structures. 

Formal elements are explicit, often communicated somewhere (employee portal, handbook, org policies ) that people can reference.

Informal information is implicit. You will not find it on the portal or in the employee handbook , but they inform how things actually get done in the organization. 

For example, the company standard (formal) may be that decisions get made in specific milestone meetings. In reality, everyone may know that decisions actually get made in ad hoc conversations (informal) before the milestone meeting.

When you’re gathering informal information, look for things like norms, mindsets, commonly held attitudes and beliefs, and networks like the employee grapevine.

Consider the organizations within the organization

Keep in mind that information–formal and informal–may not be the same in all parts of the organization.

When we consider how deep to go, it’s a good idea to explore differences based on geography because the way that work gets done can be heavily influenced by national or cultural norms and mindsets. This is especially true if you’re a global company.

You may also want to look for disparities across function or event-specific teams for a whole host of reasons. Be open to expanding your information gathering based on what you learn throughout the process.

Creating/redesigning your org

Now you’re ready to create your new org design. Again, this does not just mean creating an org structure.

You’re designing an organization that will set the company up to achieve its goals and deliver on the strategic plan. 

Your design may include things like:

• New decision-making processes
• New technologies
• Reduction or expansion of product focus
• Changes to keep up with anticipated regulatory changes.

Don’t let current limitations influence your design. Your objective is to figure out what the company needs to make your strategy a reality.

It will be up to the executive leadership team to decide if they’re willing and able to support what is needed.

Finally, a new structure

Now you’re ready to create your org structure. You have the information that you need to create the structure that will bring the rest of the org design to life. 

For example, to streamline decision-making across the organization, you may propose a flatter structure with fewer layers. 

To ensure that you can hire, retain, and grow the deep bench of technical specialists that you need to promote continuous innovation, you may create a structure where specialists don’t need to become leaders to advance to more senior levels in the organization.

Org Design Case Study

Back to the global retailer I mentioned in the intro. In the close to ten years that I was there, the organization experienced multiple senior leadership changes.

That, combined with other factors like declining sales, new competitors, and increasing materials costs, drove significant changes in strategy approximately every other year.

Rather than HR leading org redesign to comprehensively realign all aspects of the organization to support strategy changes, executive leadership insisted on multiple restructures instead.

Throughout that time, different parts of the organization went through 12 restructures(?!). In one case, a team of 100 people ballooned to close to 400 only to shrink back down less than 18 months later.

During those years, the organization lost talent, incurred significant expense in separation and exit packages, and continued to lose market share.

Decision rights became increasingly unclear, cross-functional partnerships got more difficult, and accountability continued to diminish.

By focusing almost exclusively on structure at the expense of alignment and design, not only did the company not achieve its strategic goals, it worked against itself.

Proper Organizational Design Time Requires Time

A common objection I hear against conducting a full org design process is that it takes too much time and just restructuring is faster.

As an HR professional, it’s your role to help leadership see the value in slowing down to speed up.

While restructuring may seem faster, the opportunity cost of lost efficiency, inadequate or lost talent, lack of clarity across the organization, and eroded accountability will ultimately cost the organization more time (and often more) as they try to fix what isn’t working. 

The redesign process is a thoughtful and thorough way to ensure that the organization is set up for success.

Key takeaways

• Organizational design and structure are different . OD involves aligning various aspects of an organization covering processes, workflows, strategies and structure to achieve business goals.
• HR’s important role in design. Human Resources (HR) plays a crucial role in leading the organizational design by ensuring that leadership is committed to re-designing rather than simply restructuring.
• Principles and process of effective organization design : The underlying principles of effective organizational design are business alignment, evolution flexibility, clarity, and talent retention.

Join The People Managing People Community

For further support on organizational design and restructuring, join our community of HR and business leaders sharing knowledge to help you progress in your career and make greater impact in your org.

The Role Of HR In Mergers And Acquisitions

Excel at your job by becoming more efficient, effective, and impactful in your day-to-day HR work.

• Get a head start on any new project
• Solve day-to-day challenges and get actionable advice
• Stay up-to-date on the latest HR practices

Access to 13 certificate programs,
courses and all future releases

Personal Coaching and Career Guidance

Community and live events

Resource and template library

• Organizational Development
• Organizational Design: A Complete Guide...

Organizational Design: A Complete Guide

What is organizational design? A definition

What does an organizational design initiative deliver?

• A clear strategic intent : What are we aiming to deliver?
• Guiding principles : What are the principles that inform our design decisions?
• Capability maps : Which capabilities do we need to deliver on the strategic intent, and how do they differ in strategic importance?
• Operating model blueprint :  How will these capabilities work together to execute?
• Work design : What are the teams, jobs, and skills required to deliver, and how do we organize them?
• Workforce plan : What are our strategies to resource the structure?
• Performance measures : How will we know that the design is working?

Organizations with highly mature organizational design are: 30x more likely to adapt well to change 5.3x more likely to be a great place to work 2.3x more likely to exceed financial targets However, only 11% of organizations are at high maturity in terms of organizational design. What’s more, over 7 in 10 companies say they’ve operated under their current organizational structure for five or more years. Source

The role of HR in organizational design

Three critical success factors that HR needs to consider for any organizational design project: Get the right stakeholders around the table with the appropriate knowledge, insight, and power to make decisions; Use a data-informed approach that validates design assumptions throughout the process; and Trust in the process and work according to a set roadmap.  The steps in an OD process build upon each other. By skipping steps due to time or resource constraints, we risk making the wrong design decisions that will negatively impact the ability of the organizational design model to deliver value. Dr. Dieter Veldsman, Chief HR Scientist at AIHR

Five organizational design principles

• Specialization principle . This principle states that boundaries should exist to encourage the development of specialist skills. The test here is if any specialist cultures, which are entities that have to be different from the rest of the organization, have sufficient protection from the influence of the dominant culture. 
• Co-ordination principle . This principle states that activities that are done should be coordinated in a single unit. This unit can be a business unit, business function, (horizontally coordinating) overlay unit, sub-business, core resource unit, shared service unit, project unit, or parent unit. The test here is if there needs to be coordination between departments which is hard to do. These ‘difficult links’ are links where normal networking will not provide coordination benefits. In that case, coordination should be made easier, or responsibility should be put in within a single unit. There are many different units that can be used in organizational design, as we will show below.
• Knowledge and competence principle . This principle states that responsibilities should be allocated to the person or team best fit to do them. This means that tasks are retained by higher levels based on their knowledge and competitive advantage. If this is not the case, they should be positioned lower in the organization. This means that the CEO should not be involved in every decision – especially not decisions that involve specialists with much more subject-matter knowledge. The CEO is there for the big picture and to balance complex decisions that impact the organization and strategy.
• Control and commitment principle . This principle is about having effective control on the one hand while maintaining engagement and commitment on the other hand. This is always a balance. The test here is to have a control process that is aligned with the unit’s responsibility, cost-efficient to implement, and motivating for the people in the unit. This means that the CEO is not giving the ‘go’ on the purchase decision for a $30 keyboard – this would be highly demotivating, and control on such small expenditures should be put lower in the organization to be adaptive anyway.
• Innovation and adaptation principle . This principle states that organizational structures should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to an ever-changing world. The test here is that the organizational design will help the development of new strategies and adaptation to future changes. Later in this article, we will give a case study of an organization that was unable to adapt to a rapidly changing environment, hurting its internal processes and bottom line.

Five factors affecting organizational design

• Strategy . Strategy dictates the strategic priorities of an organization. This is the most important influencing factor of organizational structure and design. 
• Environment . The environment a company operates in influences its strategy but also dictates how it positions itself. In a rapidly-changing environment, the organization has to design for more flexibility, or adaptability, while in a stable environment, the organization can optimize for efficiency.
• Technology . Information technology is a key enabler for decision-making. The state of IT impacts organizational design as well. When systems are in place, and decision-making is based on data, the organizational structure and design – including the potential for hierarchical control – will be different from an organization where most of the data is stored in unorganized Excel sheets. 
• Size & life cycle . The organizational size and life cycle also impact the organizational structure and design. A 20-person company has very different challenges when it comes to design compared to a 200,000-person company.
• Culture . Organizational culture is another key element that impacts organizational structure and design – and, vice versa, design also impacts culture.

1. Strategy

2. Environment

• Simple-complex dimension. This refers to the degree to which external factors influence the organization and competition. These are multiple for large companies such as AT&T and British Telecom, where all previously mentioned factors act on. In comparison, a family-owned hardware store in a suburb faces low environmental complexity.
• Stable-unstable dimension. This refers to the elements in the environment that are dynamic. Big consumer brands like McDonald’s are influenced by online media. They are highly visible on platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok, and a single tweet or blog post can greatly damage a brand. On the other hand, public utility companies have been stable for a long time. Take public libraries in the US between the 1970s and 2000s. These were funded by the local city, county, state, and federal governments.

3. Technology

4. size & life cycle.

Organizational effectiveness

• The first indicator of organizational effectiveness is the resource-based approach. This approach looks at the input and assesses effectiveness by evaluating whether the organization effectively obtains resources necessary for high performance.
• The Internal process approach looks at the production process and assesses effectiveness using internal health and economic efficiency. Examples include a strong culture, trustful communication, swift decision making, undistorted communication, and interaction between the organization and its parts.
• The third indicator is the goal approach. This approach assesses effectiveness by looking at how well the organization reaches it goals. Key here is to focus on operational goals, as these are easier to specify and measure.

Over to you

Erik van Vulpen

Related articles.

20 OD Interventions Every HR Practitioner Should Know

What Is Job Enlargement? [A Guide + 3 Examples]

Job Enrichment: A Practical Guide + 13 Examples

New articles.

Free Workforce Planning Template (Plus 5 Practical Examples)

Chief People Officer: All You Need To Know About the Role

What is Skills Mapping? Your 11-Step Implementation Guide

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter.

• 1.6K shares

Are you ready for the future of HR?

Learn modern and relevant HR skills, online

Strategic Management: A Competitive Advantage Approach, Concepts and Cases, 16/e by Fred R. David, Forest R. David

Get full access to Strategic Management: A Competitive Advantage Approach, Concepts and Cases, 16/e and 60K+ other titles, with a free 10-day trial of O'Reilly.

There are also live events, courses curated by job role, and more.

Match Structure with Strategy

Changes in strategy often require changes in the way an organization is structured, for two major reasons. First, structure largely dictates how objectives and policies will be established. For example, objectives and policies established under a geographic organizational structure are couched in geographic terms. Objectives and policies are stated largely in terms of products in an organization whose structure is based on product groups. The structural format for developing objectives and policies can significantly impact all other strategy-implementation activities.

The second major reason why changes in strategy often require changes in structure is that structure dictates how resources will be allocated. If an ...

Get Strategic Management: A Competitive Advantage Approach, Concepts and Cases, 16/e now with the O’Reilly learning platform.

O’Reilly members experience books, live events, courses curated by job role, and more from O’Reilly and nearly 200 top publishers.

Don’t leave empty-handed

Get Mark Richards’s Software Architecture Patterns ebook to better understand how to design components—and how they should interact.

It’s yours, free.

Check it out now on O’Reilly

Dive in for free with a 10-day trial of the O’Reilly learning platform—then explore all the other resources our members count on to build skills and solve problems every day.

Bridging the gap between a company’s strategy and operating model

How well is your company’s operating model keeping up with its evolving strategy? Under pressure to respond more quickly to rapidly changing competitive circumstances, executives today are more likely to adopt a rolling strategic plan that they update as needed  instead of the three-to-five-year plan that was once standard. Reorganization follows, as often as every two years—followed by a new operating model that can take as long as two years to implement. Companies scarcely have time to complete one organizational redesign  before starting the next one.

Change at that pace can create a disconnect between a company’s strategy and its operating model—aggravating existing problems, creating arbitrary or disconnected reactions, and breeding organizational confusion. Efforts to redesign the operating model can be too tactical to create real value. They often move departments and individuals around and change reporting lines without fundamentally shifting how an organization functions to support its strategy. And the more the intuition and cognitive biases of executives shape the process, the more an operating model can lack the grounding in the business strategy, fact base, and competing perspectives that enable it to support a company’s goals. Instead of drawing out the link between the strategy and organization, the new design may merely confirm existing biases and social dynamics. 1 Chris Bradley, Martin Hirt, and Sven Smit, Strategy Beyond the Hockey Stick: People, Probabilities, and Big Moves to Beat the Odds , Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2018.

Consider the case of one marketing-services company. After five years of rapid-fire acquisitions in an industry with a fast-changing business model, managers realized that they continued to lose ground to boutique competitors. They had acquired new companies to add similar capabilities and continued to believe in that strategy. Yet they also felt they weren’t getting the full benefit of all those acquisitions, even though business ticked up. They were at risk of failing in part because how they were working—their operating model—did not fully enable what they needed to achieve: their business goals. They knew they needed to update their operating model to keep up with the company’s evolving strategy, but they wanted to avoid the common pitfalls of operating-model design.

In situations like these, it is critical for managers to link a company’s strategy to its organization. Answering four questions will identify the capabilities and accountabilities required to enable a company’s operating model and unlock its strategy: What do we need to be able to do to create value? What distinctive capabilities do we need to create this value? Where do we have these capabilities today? And what are the implications for our operating-model design, especially on accountability and the corporate functions?

What do we need to be able to do to create value?

Strategy and operations in an airline.

Consider a major airline in the US market, where price wars and low product differentiation make it hard to maintain a competitive edge. Several years ago, executives there settled on a strategy to differentiate their airline by pushing costs down for passengers while maintaining a high-quality customer experience. A typical intuitive approach to designing an operating model might have led to one that cut costs across the board—stripping out overhead wherever possible and dropping support functions to bare-bones levels.

Instead, by answering the four questions linking strategy to organization, executives realized that a very different approach would help them achieve their goals. They determined that what was needed to create value against their strategy of being the lowest-cost carrier was keeping as many planes in the air as possible at any given time. Therefore, the distinctive capability they needed was to be able to turn planes around faster than any of their competitors. They knew that they only had this capability in pockets of the existing operating model, so they invested in creating the best trained and equipped ground crews in the industry. This had important implications for their operating-model design, including a need to reallocate resources to support training and ground operations, to ensure clear incentives for ground crews, and to ensure visible senior support for frontline operations and talent. This approach clearly linked the airline’s strategy to its organization.

Not all work is equally valuable, nor are all parts of an organization. In one airline example (see sidebar, “Strategy and operations in an airline”), executives determined that what they needed to be able to do to create value was to increase the time planes spent in the air moving customers and reduce the time spent on the ground. For any given company to achieve its strategy, there are always business units, process steps, or brand attributes that make outsize contributions to creating value relative to others.

This insight may sound simple, but companies often don’t know precisely what they do that creates the most value. They seldom sit down to identify two or three things that really matter, let alone to map the value chain of their industry to identify where the company needs to differentiate itself. That’s a critical step, since it determines not only how to design an effective operating model but also where to allocate resources.

In an example from the defense industry, completing this exercise revealed that the most important step for a major procurement organization was the very first one—having a clear, compelling, and well-designed purchasing strategy. If not done well, then subsequent steps in the value chain, lasting as long as 15 years for one product, would be painful, sluggish, and costly. To ensure that those steps could be completed quickly, effectively, and with minimal rework, the organization invested time, resources, and talent in the first step of the value chain—to ensure the up-front purchasing strategy produced a clear yet flexible direction for the product.

When the marketing-services company from our earlier example completed the value-mapping exercise, it realized that cultivating long-term high-revenue relationships was critical to its ability to meet its goals. Through analysis of the company’s accounts, the company concluded that its ability to serve large clients across multiple service offerings over consecutive years would create the most value and differentiate it from competitors.

For each of the above example organizations, the first and most important step in redesigning their operating models was to understand which specific parts of the work or steps in the value chain were most critical to creating value. Once they knew that, they could proceed to the next step and begin thinking through the capabilities they’d need.

What institutional capabilities do we need to capture this value?

Once a company understands where it creates the most value, it must identify the specific institutional competencies it needs. This usually means getting specific about what it needs to be able to do to deliver on the most important parts of the value chain:

• For the airline that wanted to reduce customer costs, the institutional competency was exceptional ground operations. That included frontline employees with the technical expertise, problem-solving skills, and continuous-improvement mind-set—as well as the resources and authority—to increase plane-turnover rates.
• For the defense-procurement organization, it was a clear and agile approach to designing strategy that included diverse stakeholders, such as engineers, program managers, contractors, and financial managers. These changes minimized costly delays and rework throughout the rest of the acquisition timeline.
• For one food and beverage consumer-goods company, it was about rigorously managing supply and support-function costs to reinvest in digital capabilities and insight analytics while rethinking the innovation model to rapidly test new products and scale successful ones.
• For the marketing firm, it was an ability to build enduring relationships with large, long-term clients by providing bundles, discounts, and related services.

Effective operating models are not designed to satisfy everyone; companies can’t be great at everything. Instead, they need to clearly identify where they can really excel in order to achieve their strategic goals.

Do we have these capabilities today—and where?

Here is where a company begins to look inward to understand whether the functions and capabilities it needs to create value currently exist—or need to be developed. Understanding whether there are distinctive institutional capabilities and where they lie involves answering a few further questions: Which functions and capabilities should reside within the corporate center versus within the business units? Who should be empowered to make key decisions and manage the budget or allocation of resources? What are the most critical roles within the organization, and do we have the best people assigned to those roles?

As agile ways of working become a source of value, executives in many industries will need to get better at identifying where the most desired capabilities already exist in their organizations, both organizationally and geographically. In this dynamic world, it is even more critical to map talent to value , putting people with the right skills and capabilities into the right jobs and the best people into the most critical roles. This will make it easier for executives to adapt to changes in strategy and operating model—as well as to address gaps between the current and desired future state.

Would you like to learn more about our People & Organizational Performance Practice ?

When executives in the marketing-services company looked closely at how their company created value, they learned that few of their existing account executives proactively opened doors for their colleagues, which limited their ability to build enduring, long-term relationships with their largest customers. In some cases, they lacked a clear understanding of what others could do. In other cases, they worried about damage to their own client relationships if their colleagues recommended services that fell short of expectations.

The company’s approach to profit-and-loss accountability exacerbated the problem: it booked revenues and costs entirely against individual service lines, rather than by customer. That reinforced existing silos of activity and limited the company’s ability to serve its largest customers in an integrated way. Without an account lead across all service lines, senior executives lacked structural or financial motivation to cross-sell services within large accounts.

What are the implications for our operating-model design?

Building a road map for operating-model design requires a company to prioritize existing strengths and redress strategic weaknesses—by reconfiguring, building, or acquiring new capabilities to ensure it can deliver on its strategic goals. Before embarking on the full operating-model redesign process , a company should articulate any implications coming out of the above assessment and ensure that the design of the operating model reflects them. For our airline example, these implications included ensuring frontline ground-crew employees were well paid and had clear paths to promotion. They also included narrowing the span of control for supervisors to emphasize coaching and support. And they included empowering ground-crew-operations leadership with decision rights.

For the marketing-services company, managers needed to develop and provide incentives for a group of client counselors who fully understood customers’ needs and could represent a wide array of marketing services. This meant higher pay, more training, and rewards for cross-selling and collaboration across service lines. It also meant creating a single senior account leader for each customer with clear lines of internal accountability and centralized communication with customers.

The company then shifted responsibilities to give account leaders time to develop their account-management skills and focus on relationship-building efforts. They updated their performance-evaluation process to encourage the right activities and outcomes. Finally, they brought together new business-development activities and project-delivery capabilities, which were previously scattered throughout the organization. This allowed teams to collaborate on integrative relationships with specific, high-revenue clients. These actions would boost the company’s ability to deliver on the function that created the most value for the company: delivering best-in-class project work across its various service offerings for the largest clients.

Experts in operating-model design have long known the importance of aligning a company’s operating model with its business strategy. Answering these four questions can unlock growth and provide clarity to what matters in an operating-model design.

Stay current on your favorite topics

Harris Atmar is a consultant in McKinsey’s New Jersey office, Camilo Becdach is a partner in the Southern California office, and Sarah Kleinman is an associate partner in the Washington, DC, office, where Kirk Rieckhoff is a senior partner.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Organizing for the age of urgency

Organizational health: A fast track to performance improvement

Getting organizational redesign right

We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience and analyze our traffic. By using our site, you consent to cookies. Privacy policy

View the latest results of the Employee Retention Index

Organizational design consulting

Optimizing your organization’s structure by putting your people first.

Organizational design consulting lays the foundation for driving growth and scale, improving service quality, elevating the customer experience, and competing to win. We see it as the means to the end of delivering business success. With a human-centered approach to organizational design that centers on people’s needs and behaviors, Eagle Hill ensures that the result works in practice, not just on paper. We go beyond rearranging the boxes and lines on the organization structure chart, so you are set up to deliver on your business strategy.

Designing organizations to thrive

The pandemic has accelerated many of the traditional drivers of organizational design. With so many changes happening fast, it’s an ideal time for leaders to take a hard look at their organizational structure—the whole enterprise or specific departments or teams—to ensure that they are positioned to meet shifting demands.

This is not simply redrawing the boxes and lines on the organization structure chart. Done right, organizational design consulting helps account for all of the elements that contribute to how work gets done every day—people, strategy, structure, governance, services, processes, and enablers like culture and technology.

Our innovative org design approach

Our innovative approach which can be seen throughout our business strategy consulting services factors in how people work today—and how work should get done tomorrow. We put people first throughout the process, immersing ourselves in the organization to collect insights, generate ideas, and test concepts. By taking a human-centered lens to organization design, we bring your organization structure to life though a tailored approach that builds a shared understanding of individuals’ roles and responsibilities.

Our solution is:

Highly-collaborative

True partnership makes for a tailored approach to align with every organization’s needs

Human-centered

Laser focus on the people, actions, and behaviors that make an organization work

Results-oriented

Real-world design for smooth implementation, transition, and meaningful outcomes

Why do we put people at the center of change?

We believe that successful organizational design has to be grounded in the whole ecosystem of people—those who do the work, and those who are impacted by the work. Our approach to organizational design consulting integrates change management expertise to ensure that transitions are seamless and align with your business objectives.

How can design motivate the right behaviors to achieve key outcomes?

How can design maximize relationships with external partners?

Want to learn more about setting up your organization to meet its goals—today and tomorrow?

 organizational design case studies, unconventional consulting leads to unbelievable results.

Here are a few examples of how we provide impact for our clients. From boosting employee retention to planning market entry, our years of creative and strategic experience have helped clients across industries reach their potential. Our organizational design consultants have proven success in aligning organizational structures with strategic business objectives to achieve long-term results.

Financial services: Narrative

Fueling strategic growth through organizational design

When a large valuation firm wanted to drive growth across all its global service lines while still reflecting its regional business cultures, we helped transform organizational design to support a new strategic vision for its operating model.

Federal government: Narrative

Reassessing organizational structure to best serve customers and employees

In just 7 weeks, we helped an HR office solve for their existing staff continuity gaps—and plan for additional process improvements in the future.

Delivering a customer-focused organizational design

When a federal management services division needed clarity on their new mission and identity, we helped set goals, streamline processes, and design new structural models for service delivery and growth.

Technology, media and entertainment: Narrative

Navigating the shift to digital through organizational realignment

When organizational responsibilities shifted between agencies, we provided our change management expertise to smooth the transition and plan for a successful merging of resources.

Managing technology + organizational change

The transition from analog to digital broadcast production was a major shift for one media organization. We helped them make a successful transition that got morale—and costs—back on track.

Working together to drive sustainable change at the forefront of federal purchasing

We partnered with the GSA FAS to help them transition to a category management approach to federal procurement as a way to improve customer service—leading to the fastest and most thorough reorganization in their history.

Related capabilities

The realities of business are constantly changing. Our capabilities can help you meet today’s challenges while laying the foundation for a sustainable and flexible future.

Strategic planning

Bridging where you are and where you want to go

We pair our knowledge of market dynamics with our deep understanding of your business and culture to define your future vision and the strategies that get you there.

Workforce planning

The future of work is changing fast. Is your organization ready?

Eagle Hill helps our clients align their workforce with the needs and priorities of their business. Through workforce planning, they get the right people in the right roles at the right time to power future success.

Performance improvement

Advancing your organizational performance

Our performance improvement consulting experts bring proven tools, skills and experience to move organizations toward success, build capacity, and sustain performance.

• Performance
• Talent management and HR consulting services
• Case studies
• Federal government
• Financial services
• Healthcare and life sciences
• State and local government
• Technology, media and entertainment
• Living Labs
• Our community
• Video library

Making Matrix Organizations Actually Work

by Herman Vantrappen and Frederic Wirtz

Most discussions about matrix organizations usually quickly devolve into a debate between two sides: those who love to hate the matrix, and those who hate to love the matrix. The former claim that a matrix structure slows decision making and obfuscates accountability. The latter retort that a matrix structure is an inescapable prerequisite for lateral coordination in large complex businesses. From our two decades of experience with organization design, we tend to side with the latter. In fact, we may even belong to a third camp, those who love to love the matrix. But our love is conditional upon its sparing and wise use.

Partner Center

Galbraith Management Consultants 303 S Broadway Suite 200-403 Denver, Colorado 80209 Telephone: +1.970.389.4107

Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide to Strategy, Structure and Process

Designing Organizations is a leader’s concise guide to the process of creating an organization that is specifically suited to the rapidly changing demands of business strategy and its external environment.

he book describes Jay Galbraith’s Star Model and how the various policy areas of strategy, structure, processes, rewards and people must be actively designed to work together in order to create an effective and competitive organization. Galbraith explains differences between functional, hybrid, product, front-back, matrix and complex five-dimensional organizations.

Unlike many other organization design books, he also details the trade-offs involved in choosing and operating these types of organizations. This book is small but packed with both theory and explicit case studies of actual companies, such as Apple Computer, 3M, Intel, Motorola and Toyota.

“This book is the ultimate corporate reference guide for the organization design practitioner. Jay Galbraith’s book provides detailed logic and examples of when to consider a particular organization design, such as a front-back organization, and what the relative costs of choosing that organization are. We highly recommend it to our members.” — Association for the Management of Organization Design

“A must-read for anyone who is ready for a dose of clear thinking on organizational strategy and design. Jay Galbraith understands strategy and structure better than anyone I know.” — Edward E. Lawler III, Director, Center for Effective Organizations.

“Jay Galbraith is the architect for CEOs, human resource executives, and all others responsible for building organizational capability. His design principles and models are an excellent foundation for shaping an effective organization.” — Stephen Balogh, Vice President, Human Resources, Raychem Corporation.

Contact Galbraith Management Consultants

303 S Broadway Suite 200-403 Denver, Colorado 80209

Telephone: +1.970.389.4107

Contact Us Via Email

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Cambridge Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work
• > Culture and organization design: strategy, structure, and decision-making

Book contents

• Frontmatter
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• PART I CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS
• PART II CULTURE AND ORGANIZATION THEORY
• 4 Culture and organization design: strategy, structure, and decision-making
• 5 Cross-cultural perspectives on international mergers and acquisitions
• 6 Global culture and organizational processes
• 7 Cultural variations in the creation, diffusion and transfer of organizational knowledge
• 8 Cultural variations and the morphology of innovation
• PART III CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR
• PART IV FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN THEORY AND RESEARCH

4 - Culture and organization design: strategy, structure, and decision-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2009

Cultural anthropologist Edward T. Hall relished using parables in his writings to make points about cultural differences that more serious scholarly treatments often obscure. One of his more popular parables continues to be salient today as organizations and their managers increasingly interact with their distant counterparts around the world. Hall (1960) recalled a time of a great flood that involved a monkey and a fish. When the flood came, the agile and experienced monkey quickly scrambled up a tree to escape the raging waters below. As she looked down from her safe perch, she noticed a poor fish struggling against the swift current. With the very best of intentions, she reached down and lifted the fish from the water, with predictable consequences for the fish. Unfortunately, as globalization takes hold around the world, more and more monkeys are increasingly trying to save more and more fish, frequently leading to confusion, misunderstandings, conflicts, and lost opportunities.

Most organizations today are increasingly going global, whether they wish to or not. In doing so, however, it would be incorrect to assume that these highly diverse organizations seek convergence in their strategies and structures for accomplishing their missions. Simply put, there is no such thing as a preferred global organization design. Many factors – including cultural differences – play important roles in determining how organizations are structured and work to achieve their goals. In this regard, organizational scholars risk losing their relevance to the extent that they lose sight of many of the key structural and managerial differences that proliferate around the world.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Culture and organization design: strategy, structure, and decision-making
• By Richard M. Steers , Luciara Nardon , Carlos Sanchez-Runde
• Edited by Rabi S. Bhagat , University of Memphis , Richard M. Steers , University of Oregon
• Book: Cambridge Handbook of Culture, Organizations, and Work
• Online publication: 15 December 2009
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581151.005

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .