Theory W 298
Chapter 4 - Organization structures
Formal organization
Formal-functional
Matrix organization
Other organization forms
The unit of organization
Review. Chapters 2-3 provided
an academic framework
to overlay the industrial entrance to the historical
practice of organization theory laid out in Chapter 1.
The
resulting hierarchical layout of organization theories were
summarized in phases. The last summary, namely phase eight,
was in chapter 2 as table 28 on page 221. Formal and matrix
theories appear in that table, but because of importance,
those two theories are taken up in this separate chapter.
Thus narrowing the focus for Theory W.
Summary. Here we explore
the history of the
hierarchical formal organization chart and the matrix
organization chart. The graphical illustration dominates
that history. We further review the matrix organization
(MO) solution for the formal authority (dysFA) versus
functional authority (FA) struggle, both for the individual
and for larger organizations.
Next. Focus the functional
database (Theory W)
universal approach to organization.
Organization defined.
Organization is the arrangement
of people in patterns
of working relationships so that their energies
may be
Theory W page 299 Structures
related more effectively to the large job.
(114 27)
To understand organization requires
description. And
to understand requires mental transcendence - better known
as conceptualization. Thus the conceptual structures of
organization are studied.
The ability to mentally transcend
differs from
scholarship and science. The attributes of scholarship
are....Scientific method consists of....Transcendence, being
different, uses theory, association, and differentiation to
build a view of the world - where any view of the world
being wisdom. Thus any person can possess wisdom.
Then
depending upon scholarly reference, that wisdom can expand
the boundaries of personal and world knowledge. Thus we
are
curious, we study, we choose, and we act. In Hegel's terms,
we synthesize....
From Maslow and Alderfer we know
about our relatedness
need. Assuming that our existance needs are filled, our
relatedness needs are fulfilled by using organization.
Thus
we live out our lives in organizations - in our own
individual organization and in organizations with others,
that is, in multi-individual organizations.
Formal organization
The triangle structure.
The military, the church, and the
monarchy are all
institutions that believe in and maintain pyramid-like
structures whose plumb line is the unity of command.
Theory W page 300 Structures
Business...adopted the unitary belief: thou shalt
have
but one boss above thee. (151 4)
Thus we have authority of position
- boss position one
(BP1), boss position two (BP2), etc. Figure 10 displays
the
triangle structure in chart form. First a word about the
phenomenon of the organization chart.
Organization charts.
Any organization chart represents
a phenomenal
construction, based on certain meaning attributions,
presumably related to the dynamics of the organization.
On
this basis, as many a practical consultant expresses
awareness, the organization charts as published and
officially specified, provide - within the bounds of the
observer's conceptual frame - significant insights into that
organization's processes, going beyond a simple structural
analysis.
Perhaps of still greater interest
are phenomenological
projections of organization charts. Variously
used by OD
specialists, small-group trainers, and others concerned
with the elucidation of meaning in formal systems,
this
procedure partakes of the following general
characteristics:
(1) The observer is asked to reflect
on the nature of
a specified organization of which he is a member.
(The
OD specialist, trainer, etc., serves as the
phenomenologist, in the context of a mutual exploration
of the organization's significance.) The observer
is
asked to consider a subjective organization chart
[functional in nature].
(2) The phenomenologist may, on
the assumption that
some conceptual meanings are shared, further ask
the
observer to focus on (a) the form, shape, or structure
of
the organization; or (b) simply on the organization
as a
whole, with no parameters specified.
Theory W page 301 Structures
(3) The observer then proceeds,
in accordance with the
phenomenologist's inquiry, to draw a picture of
the
organization chart as it is conceived by the
observer....(108 44)
The phenomenologist, by individual
interaction with
the observer [going from the narrative provided
blocking
characteristics] or by group process including two
or
more observers, elicits from the observer(s) an
exploration of the various meanings attributed to
the
organization, as a unit and in its internal
differentiations. At this stage, the relationship-trust
dimension linking phenomenologist and observer is
crucial. In an extension of the conventional
"rapport"
notion, deeper and committed trust is of heightened
importance if the examination of the chart(s) provided
is
to extend beyond the typical rhetoric concerning
organization structure. (108 63-4)
Figure 10 - Formal organization chart
____________________________________________________________
BP1
|
-------------
| | |
BP2 BP3 BP4
| | |
------ ------- -----
| | | | | |
|
BP5 BP6 1 BP7 2 BP8 BP9
| | |
| |
----- --- --- -------- -----
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
____________________________________________________________
Note: BPs stand for nine boss positions and 14 others are
non-bosses.
Matrix organization
Note in Figure 11 that the matrix
builds from the
formal.
Theory W page 302 Structures
Figure 11 - Matrix managerial positions
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (144 19) Fig.2-5 titled - Managerial positions in a
typical matrix.
The pure formal. The formal chart
for Figure 11
includes seven managers. And note that the span of control
theory remains in effect in Figure 12.
Figure 12 - Pure formal base of Figure 10
____________________________________________________________
GM1
|
-------------------------
| | | | | |
|
PM1 PM2 PM3 FM4 FM5 FM6 FM7
____________________________________________________________
Does this mean that the project
managers (PMs) are not
functional? In answering, one can find that there exists
a
Theory W page 303
Structures
formal position functional and a project task functional -
the functions of an organization support both formal
positions and project tasks. Remember that two theories
are
respectively represented by the foregoing - position
authority and aim authority.
Theory W attempts to provide organization
for aim
authority. The two authorities must be reconciled.
If not
reconciled, the formal will never suffice.
Formal chart was never real.
Experienced executives often point
out that people
have always had to satisfy others beside their formal
boss; that communication lines in traditional
organizations did not merely follow the black lines
on
the organization chart; and that work direction
did not
only follow the chain of command. (150 vii)
Why then does this traditional
formal organization
exist?
Formal chart justification. Traditional
organization
provides -
(1) model identification for workers,
(2) centralized resources, and
(3) a well defined career path
(79 656).
Why then the search for new organization theory?
Technology pressure. With the
advent of numerous
projects for change justified by whatever justification -
(1) the competition for and allocation
of resources
became complex,
(2) formal functional department
goals took precedence
over project goals, and
(3) the top levels had difficulty
structuring project
work within a formal non-project functional organization
Theory W page 304 Structures
(79 656).
The answer was to formalize aim
authority right on the
formal chart. The first major praxis was a
formal-functional chart. The second major praxis was a
matrix chart which attempts to integrate aim authority with
the formal-functional structure.
Formal-functional history. One
of the early
industrial examples of the formal functional chart appears
in Figure 13.
Theory W page 305 Structures
Figure 13 - Requisite abilities importance
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (164 12) Table V titled - Relative importance of
requisite abilities.
Line and staff organization structure.
There is a tendency for their number
[subordinates] to
exceed his span of "control." If he groups
"functions"
the same difficulty of cross-correlation occurs
at lower
Theory W page 306 Structures
levels of the organization. The dilemma is
a real one.
In a large organization the complex of different
principles which demand consideration in the structure
of
authority and responsibility may be most serious.
The
solution so far adopted in practice is know as the
"Line
and Staff" system of organization. It is admittedly
a
compromise. Precise statement of what is meant
by the
term is lacking. A form of organization may
be described
with reference to the functions allotted to the
various
positions or with reference to the relations between
different positions. (188 57)
Machine orientation. Budding machinery
high
technology enamored some industry and education
administrators at the expense of the worker's want of the
Hawthorne effect which represented people high technology.
Note the machine references in
early organization
charts - blast furnaces, steel works, rolling mills, and
maintenance in Figure 13 above. Also note in Figure 13,
that the people-ability tasks appear for the last time in
the literature. Universal interest in timed tasks
apparently had waned while interest in machine functions
solidified as the formal-functional organization chart.
Whenever machines weigh more in
organization Theory We
have a machine bureaucracy technology as in Table 37. In
contrast, usually the quality circle technology performs
more effectively. See previous material.
Theory W page 307 Structures
Table 37 - The machine bureaucracy structure
____________________________________________________________
Bureaucracy
Levels Remarks
___________ _____________________________________
Assumptions Workers naturally dislike work
Motivation by treats and money
Systems must be made idiot-proof
Norms Subordinates
work and are not heard
Only the experts know
Procedures Repetitive actions are the work
tasks
One person, one job
One person supervises many
Decisions made by authorities
Obedience is rewarded
____________________________________________________________
Note: (88 719).
Pure functional spirit. Note that
the above does not
use the word function for the position "boxes" of the formal
chart. The position boxes are chief, head, cashier, etc.
Some scholars in the early 1900s recognized that functions
were not the positions. Rather, the functions were the
abilities or tasks that the position holders performed.
The
pure function detail of each organization individual shows
in Figure 14. Note well that this organization theory also
applied to the one-man enterprise.
Theory W page 308 Structures
Figure 14 - Functions each & all
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (164 12) Tables III and IV titled Relative Importance
of Requisite Abilities of Personnel.
Theory W page 309
Structures
The above pure-functional spirit
seems to have never
been able to make the transition from Fayol's French
publication. Instead the matrix theory became popular.
The matrix form.
It is the first truely new approach
to the
organization of divisions, groups and entire companies
since the product division was introduced in the
early
1920's. If so, it comes at a good time, for
many
companies are having difficulties adapting their
existing, traditional organizational approaches
to the
new, more complex business environment. It
may even
work, although it is still far to early to judge.
(150 1)
Figure 20 in the Other Organization
Forms section
shows a product division structure, but first a historical
perspective.
Theory W page 310 Structures
Figure 15 - 1936 matrix chart
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Source: (191 17 in 182) titled Purpose and Process in
Organization with vertical purpose and horizontal process.
First matrix
The above figure can be seen a
hard evidence of early
matrix thinking. The following can be seen as a less
scholarly approach.
Theory W page 311 Structures
The first matrix project management
organization came
about when the owner of a small construction company
sent
a project manager off with a contract and a bankroll
to
complete a job [series of tasks]. As an afterthought,
he
sent along a cost-control clerk more loyal to the
owner
than to the project manager. This was also
the first
matrix management problem. Formal matrix management,
as
applied to a project, is a system whereby any given
individual or discipline group within a project
organization is responsible both to the project
organization to complete the project within given
project
restraints (time, cost, quality, etc.), and also
to a
functional discipline-control [standards] group
or
individual for the manner in which the functional
discipline is performed. The process is to
staff the
project with the talent necessary to complete the
job,
make sure that everyone understands the objective
of the
project, and furnish necessary tools, materials,
and
other resources (normally data and logistic support)
to
accomplish this objective. (82 72-3)
1980s matrix.
A time-line-sign of the emerging
matrix organization
(Library of Congress Subject Heading) appears between 1981
and 1984 - specially, "a kaleidoscope of organizational
systems" from the December 1981 Management Review was
adapted to "a kaleidoscope of matrix management
systems.(85 3)" Thus there is nothing necessarily
revolutionary about the matrix structure - just a growing
specific topic of literature.
1990s matrix.
1990s is informal project mgt with
simple tasks in the
sense of definite boundaries, outputs, and inputs.
The
more dynamic operational environment will have somewhat
tighter task performance set. (81 308)
Disadvantage.
Theory W page 312 Structures
Matrix structures can become
highly complex, both on
paper and in practice. Most managers who were
interviewed, including those who enjoyed working
in
matrix structures, counseled the use of matrix approaches
only in certain circumstances and then suggested
keeping
the matrix design as simple as possible. (150
vi)
Can another organization theory
be developed? And
how? The next chapters present a proposal. Until
then,
several items are taken up. First, a review of other
organization structures.
Other structures
Figure 16 - Mature matrix
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (151 44) titled Phase IV: Mature Matrix.
The above means that the authority
of the
formal-function and project-function have been balanced.
Both functionaries then focus on the non-bosses as shown in
Figures 17 and 18. Note how Figure 18 emphasizes the need
for discipline supervisors. Also note that nebulous dotted
line indicating an important yet intermittent relationship.
Theory W page 313 Structures
Figure 17 - Matrix formal bosses
____________________________________________________________
GM1
|
-------------------------
| | | | | |
|
PM1 PM2 PM3 FM4 FM5 FM6 FM7
\ | /
\ | /
\| /
14
____________________________________________________________
Note: Building from Figure 12, GM is general manager, PM is
project manager, FM is functional manager in the formal
structure, and 14 is a non-boss.
Figure 18 - Matrix many bosses
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (86 59) titled Basic Matrix Structure.
Simply because individuals like
to be their own bosses
and be responsible for performance and quality, multi-formal
boss theory just doesn't provide the ultimate synergistic
efficiency or effectiveness - thus Figure 19.
Theory W page 314 Structures
Figure 19 - Beyond matrix
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (151 45) called Phase V :Beyond the Matrix.
Figure 20 - Product structure
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (129 12) titled Functional Organization Structure.
Theory W proceeds to provide practical
specifics to
move beyond the difficulties of the matrix structure.
Toward that end several other organization forms are
observed.
Figure 20 displays an example
of a product
organization structure.
Theory W page 315 Structures
Figure 21 - Informal projects
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (81 308) titled Matrix Implementation Scheme.
Matrix history - 1960s, 1970s,
1980s. Figure 21
attempts to relate several key organization factors. One
might oppose a lesser need for understanding individual
behavior, or that tasks are becoming simpler.
Yet, consider the history of matrix.
Project
management tools of the 1960s are there to be integrated
with a total organization theory. Tasks for individual
responsibility and quality are there to be simply stated for
simple accountability. The tasks however, are for sure,
Theory W page 316
Structures
becoming more complex for the purpose of achieving
synergism, which tends to center at individual initiative.
Thus work tasks can become both simple and complex at the
same time.
Figure 22 - Operational islands
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (81 315) titled Why Are Systems Necessary?
Theory W, like the matrix, builds
on those
aforementioned project management tools from the realm of
management science. But before we go on, I desire to pin
down the basic productive unit of the organization.
Solomon's temple in Chapter 1
had hewers,
transporters, setters, designers, and administrators.
Figure 10 displayed bosses. Figure 12 displayed general,
project, and functional managers. Figure 17 exemplified
non-boss number 14. All of these examples involve workers
-
all individuals are workers - all have tasks to perform.
The individual worker asks, "What work tasks do I contribute
Theory W page 317 Structures
relative to all other work tasks?"
1960s projects.
Project management emerged in an
unobtrusive manner
starting in the early 1960s. No one can claim
to have
invented project management... (85 3)
Needs and wants continue to drive
the development of
what is now the Library of Congress Subject Heading of
matrix organization. Many unique organizations have and
continue to exist.
These systems appear to have one
overriding
characteristic - a departure from the classical
model of
management in favor of a multidimensional system
of
sharing decisions, results, and rewards in an
organizational culture characterized by multiple
authority-responsibility-accountability relationships.
(85 3)
Then in 1961, the Harvard Business Review, pronounced
the obsolescence of the line-staff
concept and
heralded a growing trend toward functional-teamwork
approaches to organization. Also in 1961,
IBM
established systems managers with overall responsibility
for various computer models across functional division
lines. (85 3)
1970s project management made sense.
The 1970s brought with them a variety
of matrix
structures. The most common structure was
the formalized
matrix structure as used in project-driven
organizations.... Most non-project-driven
(and some
project-driven) organizations accepted fragmented
project
management... (81 312-3)
Theory W considers the individual
worker to be the
unit of organization. The work tasks under each individual
are the unit of control. Control comes through the
Theory W page 318
Structures
individual worker. Many times, individual workers become
operational islands, not supportive of the organization"s
aim. Thus a formal system of aim authority should be
documented. Figure 21 pointed to some type of informal
project management. Figure 22 points to a general need
to
provide a system to pull together any operational islands.
Better yet, an organization plan can perform best if the
formal and functional gaps are not permitted in the first
place. Project management within management science provide
a beginning.
Figure 23 - Projects work flow
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (86 60) titled Matrix Organization.
One variation of matrix attempts
to have the work
tasks flow from the circled resource centers into the
purposeful projects - a beginning.
Work task flow as primary.
Theory W page 319 Structures
Figure 24 - People interfaces
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (87 336) titled Matrix Organization People Interfaces.
Clarifying the current aim. Illustration
(86 60)
reverses the traditional line-staff concept - the
traditional manufacturing function becomes the support for
the traditional staff-project manufacturing. The reason
being a greater emphasis on effectively implementing the
current purpose of the organization. The traditional
service activity of the functional resources are now shown
differently. Theory W takes a more radical approach - that
of showing the activity organization separate from the
traditional formal structure and beyond the matrix
structure.
Service to aim wins over dictating.
Theory W page 320 Structures
As the matrix matures...functional
managers usually
adapt to...serve as well as dictate, a task some
find
difficult. (144 21)
Unchartable interfaces.
Reference span of control mathmatics in prior material.
To
promote a set number of people interfaces, as in Figure 24,
does not recognize the synergistic complexity of the
individual worker.
Figure 25 - Work flow hierarchy
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Note: (122 223) titled Planning System Under Functional
Organization.
Theory W page 321 Structures
Conflict resolution.
Table 38 - Conflict resolution modes
____________________________________________________________
Theory W Resolution
Levels Levels
Remarks
____________________________________________________________
Mission Superordinate goal Goal congruence
Confrontation
The win-win solution (140 603-4)
Objective Compromise
Problem
solving
Forcing
Personnel non-fit?
Action Smoothing
Withdrawal
Inaction
____________________________________________________________
Note: (139 179).
Table 39 - Herzberg's two-factor theory
____________________________________________________________
Theory W Herzberg
Herzberg
Motivators Motivators
Hygiene items
____________________________________________________________
Mission Individual potential
Work content nature Personal relationships
Advancement Technical
supervision
Objective Responsibility
Policies and procedures
Recognition Status
Action Achievement
Job security
Salary
Working conditions
____________________________________________________________
Source: (142 293)
Organization development.
Organizational development [OD]
had its origin back in
the late 1940s, when the first T-groups (training
groups)
and group dynamics processes appeared on the business
scene. (141 507)
OD interventions...include such
disparate methods as
sensitivity training, sensing sessions, team-building
sessions, conflict resolutions meetings, management
skill
Theory W page 322 Structures
training, communication workshops, situational leadership
training, and internal management consulting programs
aimed at improving and increasing the effectiveness
of
the organization's response to internal and external
challenges and pressures. (141 508)
As a very important distinction,
Theory W sees the
task as it concerns the individual. The Theory W task,
in
human worker organization, cannot be an issue of the task
force. Reference previous quality circle information.
Matrix summary.
We define matrix as any organization
that employs a
multiple command system - that includes not only
a
multiple command structure but also related support
mechanisms and an associated organizational culture
and
behavior pattern. (151 3)
As seen in further material, Theory
W calls for a
separation of the multiple command system so as to emphasize
the work flow which supports the mission or aim of the
organization through the individual worker. Figure 25
addresses that hierarchical view.
Theory W, in turn, provides a
computerized database
hierarchical chart of strategy which can provide authority
of aim and purpose for the organization. Figure 26 provides
a preview of the database structure, illuminating both a
simplifying yet complexity-encompassing organization
structure.
Theory W page 323 Structures
Figure 26 - Functional database structure
____________________________________________________________
/\
/ \
/ \
why
/ aim \
/ \
/ \
/ goals \
when
/
\
/
\
/ objectives \
/ actualizations \
/ work tasks
\
/ responsible individuals\
/
\
way /
what where \
who
/
\
____________________________________________________________
Source: Future materials in this dissertation.
Results orientation.
The matrix element in an organization...is
primarily
objective- or results-oriented, in contrast to the
traditional functional elements. (80 243)
Aspects of improved effectiveness...
[1] enhanced technical excellence,
[2] expanded opportunities
for exploitation,
[3] accessibility of key
talent,
[and 4] focused program leadership. These
are not minor
advantages in the competitive world of high-
technology... (135 219)
Short and long impact.
In the short term, the matrix provides
for flexible
use of key technical resources, both people and
facilities. (Functional "feudalities" don't
have to be
reorganized to move the talent from program to program
to
meet fluctuating demands.) For the long term, the
matrix
expands the avenues for business benefit from broadly
applicable strategic investment. (A pattern
of shared
resources and shared responsibilities obviates the
traditional technology transfer issue altogether.)
Theory W page 325 Structures
(135 211)
Typical organization evolution.
Most organizations begin as a normal,
functional
hierarchy characterized by the straight-line chain
of
command, the one-man, one-boss concept, and the
division
of responsibility and formal authority...
(83 13)
However, special requirements
arise that are not
encompassed within one or more of the functions.
(83 14)
As change becomes more pervasive
- that is, as the
environment becomes more turbulent - organizations
find
themselves sponsoring more and more projects.
(83 15)
Once top management has recognized
the importance of
the project work and has convinced their subordinate
functional and project managers of the situation,
the
essence of the matrix has been achieved. (83
18)
Key words used to describe matrix
roles include
communication, flexibility, collaboration, negotiation,
and trust. (83 18)
Matrix installation time.
Typically, a year or more was spent
defining the [role
specification] responsibilities and relationships
of the
managers in the matrix. These had to be defined,
situation by situation, responsibility by responsibility.
"Only when we get down to step-by-step definitions
do we
get agreement," explains a manufacturing company
executive. (150 40)
The unit of organization
People focus.
"The most critical resource in [all]
matrix
organizations is manpower. (41 539)" To restate further
-
only the responsible individual accomplishes the work
element in support of the organization mission. All
machine/physical centers must be assigned individual
responsibility for exercise of the control concept. Theory
W provides generic task information without complex
Theory W page 325
Structures
distinction as shown in (41 542). The role grid (41 543)
does not lead to optimum control. Theory W offers a more
straight-forward approach.
The reason is for directness of
performance evaluation
and responsibility assignment - even though that
responsibility is dynamic. Theory W reconciles one-boss
with dynamic responsibility.
The matrix [has] a life cycle,
with definite phases:
from Phase I, the traditional pyramid, with its
unity of
command, and the three conditions which can make
the
pyramid inadequate; to Phase II, a temporary overlay
of
coordinating mechanisms such as project teams; to
Phase
III, a permanent overlay of the secondary dimension;
to
Phase IV, a mature matrix that balanced the two
organizing dimensions equally. While most
organizations
will stabilize at Phase IV, for others there also
is or
will be Phase V. (151 223)
That Phase V can be seen as Theory W.
[Matrix] variations are many, and
the twists peculiar
to given organizations are surely more commonplace
than
the theoretical "balanced matrix" that academically
spreads its branches evenly throughout the organization.
(78 406)
Multiple divisions.
Williamson (1970) gave a more
detailed treatment of
the characteristics and advantages of the multiple-
divisions (M-form) organization structure, which can be
summarized as follows:
(a) operating decisions are handled
by independent
divisions [job holders];
(b) the elite staff attached to
the general office
assist in the control of divisions by providing
advisory
and auditing functions [the "normal" chain of formal
organization chart command];
Theory W page 326 Structures
(c) the general office undertakes
strategic decisions
[the why in the mission statement];
(d) the general office is concerned
with overall
performance [objectives attainment] rather than
the
performance of specific divisions [job holders];
and
(e) the M-form is characterized
by rationality and
synergy....
It may seem that characteristic
(a), the independence
of divisions [job holders], is not advantageous,
but
Williamson argues that it cuts off weak interactions
and
encourages rich (and hence synergistic) interactions.
(115 197-8)
Functional redefined.
The matrix element in an organization...is
primarily
objective- or results-oriented, in contrast to the
traditional functional elements. (80 243)
To fully explore the difference
between...two
organizational orientations, the extreme activity
oriented view will be contrasted with the extreme
results
oriented view. In reality and in application,
these two
concepts must be integrated. (80 243-4)
Theory W not only integrates the
two organization
structures, but academically questions the need for the
formal functional traditional structure. The functional
activities produce the results. Thus Theory W stresses
activity measurement in terms of results.
The matrix design...tends to develop
more people who
think and act in a general management mode.
By inducing
this kind of action, the matrix increases an
organization's information-processing capacity.
(151 17)
The increase of an organization's
information-processing capacity comes more explicitly in the
pure functional organization form than with the matrix form.
The cause of more information-processing capacity being the
actual construction and use of a database representation of
Theory W page 327
Structures
organization structure rather than the traditional graphical
form.
Organization & strategy.
Whatever strategy is -
organizational planning must be
accomplished
simultaneously with strategic planning, to assure
a
structure appropriate for the objectives being sought
with the selected strategies. The matrix organization
is
often selected because of its inherent adaptability,
compared to a functional organization. (80
246)
Functional organization, as differentiated
from
dysfunctional organization, informal organization, formal
organization, and technical organization can be seen as the
focus of Theory W.
Output of structure.
Differences in output related themselves
approximately
to the individual's position in the group.
That is to
say, differences in output related themselves to
social
controls established by the informal grouping and
not to
individual capacity or to economic or logical
considerations. [Dickson] expresses a caution
that these
conclusions apply specifically to the group under
observation and are not to be interpreted as
generalizations. (190 154)
Can functional organization in
the form of Theory W
continually improve output? The answer lay in the W words,
some of which were shown in the above figure - why, way,
what, where, who, when....
The stage for Theory W can thus
be seen. Can Theory W
now be differentiated for understanding and productive
application?
Theory W 328
Part 2 - Theory W essentials
Chapter 5 - A three-sided pyramid
6 - Propositions and hypothesis
7 - Entrances to the structure
Review. The part 1 review
was in narrative form.
This review moves away from that narrative form toward a
tabular form of organization structure. If Theory W proves
to be universal, it should apply to any organization,
including this dissertation. Thus we are moving toward
a
functional organization structure with a database format.
Table 40 - Functional structure in database format
____________________________________________________________
Strategy term Comment
______________ ___________________________________________
Mission - growth, challenge,
relatedness,
encouragement, respect, existence....
Goals - good feeling, eustress, authorship, PhD....
Verb Descriptor
Noun
___________________________________________
Objectives to
be implemented - style electronic
writing
delimit wisdom
key words
research organization structures
identify organization theories
clarify theory
construction
illuminate organization propositions
formulate Theory W hypothesis
identify 24 hour daily work
provide 3-sided
pyramid
____________________________________________________________
Note: See material surrounding the initial figure of part 1.
Theory W 329
Essentials
Part 1 interpreted the history
of organization from
both the industrial and educational views, illustrated many
organization structures, reviewed the body of scholars, and
commented on the application of science to the structuring
of functional organization.
Summary. Using the action-verb
and noun form, this
part 2 -
1- demonstrates a close yet separate kinship between the
pure functional structure, called Theory W, and
the pure
formal and pure informal organization structures,
by
using a three-sided pyramid as a visual aid,
2- illuminates organization propositions,
3- presents a rough outline of the Theory W model of the
pure functional structure,
4- formulates a hypothesis, and
5- exposits on human work - individual work being the
essence of the pure functional organization structure.
Next. Part 3 investigates
the application of the pure
functional organization structure hypothesis to several
individual case studies. Part 4 continues application to
several multi-individual case studies. Part 5 sets forth
the possibility of using a testing instrument to measure the
value of using Theory W in an organization setting.
