The Skeletal System and Organisational Structure

Naomi Uehara

Image from: Cartoon Stock (n.d. b)


The skeleton has been used as a metaphor for organisational structure in this OLKM model because just as the skeleton gives the human body its form, the structure, processes, policies and procedures of an organisation help to shape the learning and knowledge within. Structure is a vital aspect of organisations as it helps to arrange the people and tasks within the organisation.

Image from: Inner Body (2011)

The aim for learning organisations is to prevent losing organisational knowledge while encouraging knowledge transfer within the organisation (Joia & Lemos, 2010). As part of this, it is important for organisations to understand what some of the factors that assist OLKM are. In addition to having a culture and leadership that supports OL and knowledge transfer; structure, policies, formal systems, use of IT networks, social networks and ease of social interactions can also influence OLKM (Rhodes, Hung, Lok, Lien and Wu, 2008).

This section of the model considers some of the theoretical perspectives that have explored the link between organisational structure and OLKM.

Firstly, it is important to revise some of the background information about organisational structures.  Traditional organisational structures include functional, geographical or matrix designs. These tend to be vertically or hierarchically focused (see Figure 1 for an example of a traditional, hierarchical organisation structure) which can cause barriers to horizontal communication within the organisation (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). Horizontally designed organisations create an alternative to traditional structures (see Figure 2 for an example). This concept designs work around processes rather than tasks. By designing the organisation in this way, it requires cross-functional co-ordination and communication. Horizontal structures also make it easier to have an organic structure.
Burns and Stalker (1994) pioneered the concept of mechanistic vs. organic organisations. Mechanistic organisations are characterised by their hierarchical, bureaucratic nature with narrow task design and communication coming from the top down the organisation. Organic organisations are on the opposite end of the scale and are characterised by the increased use of teams and social networks, decentralised decision making and broad task design. 
So far, the structures that have been discussed are very internally focused. However, as discussed briefly in the model overview, organisations are open systems and sometimes need to look outside of themselves for new sources of knowledge and learning. The following table defines some examples of innovative structures that are emerging which increase inter-organisational knowledge sharing:



(Definitions adapted from Camping, Poole, Weisner, Ang, Chan, Tan 
& Schermerhorn, 2008 and Kreitner and Kinicki, 2010)


As many of these structures are new and relatively untested, it is not certain exactly what impact it will have on the way OLKM will develop in these organisations.

Now that we have had a brief overview of the different types of organisational structures, how do these structures influence OLKM? One of the major impacts of organisational design on OLKM is how it affects knowledge and information sharing within the organisation. Joia and Lemos (2010) argue that humans play a fundamental role in converting information to knowledge. So, it can be argued that organisations must have a structure that supports the sharing of information and, by extension, knowledge and learning (Ward 2007).

Image from: Cartoon Stock (n.d. b)
Organic organisations with horizontal structures tend to promote sharing of information more than hierarchical, bureaucratic and mechanistic organisations (Joia & Lemos, 2010; Rhodes et al, 2008 and Senge, 1990). It is also important to have group reward initiatives because otherwise there will be no incentive for more knowledgeable members to help others in the organisation (Joia & Lemos, 2010). Members with knowledge also need to be accessible to the whole group, regardless of position in the company hierarchy, this is not always possible and rarely easy in bureaucratic organisations.


Increased levels of trust also increase the level of information and knowledge transfer (Joia & Lemos, 2010) and this can be better fostered in flat organisations rather than hierarchical ones with the traditional form of command and control management. Employees in bureaucratic and negatively political organisations can feel disempowered if they lose their unique knowledge.

Scarso, Bolisani and Salvador (2009) discuss the concept of communities of practice (COPs). COPs aim to bridge islands of knowledge that may occur in large, sometimes geographically isolated organisations in order to increase knowledge sharing, innovation and organisational learning.

Much as different animals have different skeletal systems, it is important to remember that there is no single best structure for every organisation and each organisation needs to be aware of what will work best for them. This concept is known as the contingency theory. So it is important for organisations to remember that all of the structures mentioned above have a time and a place. In the midst of so many theorists espousing the benefits of flat, organic structures, it is easy to be caught in the trap of thinking that there is only one best way (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2010). Many of the structures are part of a spectrum and there are advantages to both ends of the spectrum. It could be argued that functional structures allow individuals to increase the knowledge and know-how in their area of specialisation, something that would not be supported in horizontal organisations which encourage individuals to be multi-skilled (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2010). Linking back to the model, bones need to be strong in order to support the body, however they also need to be flexible in order to not be brittle and easy to break. Similarly, organisational structure, policies and procedures also require flexibility to facilitate adaptability to the environment but also some amount of rigidity (Nevis, DiBella & Gould, 1995). So balance and best fit are also vital in finding a structure that will both benefit the organisation in the short term while developing OLKM for benefits that will extend into the long term.





Figure 1. Traditional hierarchy (Reference for Business, 2011)


                   
Figure 2. A horizontal structure (comp326_zivcheong, 2011)


















Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)