Identify and Briefly Describe the Features of Any Four Structures You Are Familiar with and Discuss the Reasons for Diversity of Type and Structure of Organisations. Give Examples Where Appropriate

"There are always, in any explanation of organisational structure, four types"#, with any breakdown of viewpoints of organisation culture, whether it be by structualists or ideologists , they all agree there is always 4 cultures and 4 structures. Four types of structure which are identified by structualists, are common within organisations today, these are Functional Structure, Matrix Structure, Web Structure and Closter Structure.

Firstly the Functional Structure, is where the organisation itself is structured around functions rather than a product line#, which means it is structured groups in specialized similar skills, rather than working in one whole unit. This kind of structure is best utilised when creating a specific product, and a mass amount of the product, and is a structure that is economically efficient in keeping the organisation afloat, but the biggest drawback with this economic efficiency is that there is a lack of flexibility.

With Matrix structure there is a big difference to Functional Structure, in that within a Functional Structure, the workers only have to report to one boss, within the Matrix Structure its two bosses, which would be the head of the workers department and the coordinator of the given work project.# Within this given structure, workers will just get on with the task given and then move on to the next task at hand, this makes this structure highly efficient when getting a task done. One such example of this is kind of structure would be the Google Organisation, where the employees, again do report to two bosses, but are also grouped together to complete a task on work project, whilst moving on within their own functional unit when completing work project.#

With a Web structure, it can be described simply as a structure of Hierarchy, where the figurehead has the power. At each stage of the web each individual has a number of workers below them, until you reach the bottom of basic workers that make up the large bass of the organisation, with one figurehead. The best example of one such organisation is Virgin, with Richard Branson as the figurehead with a number of subordinates, each of whom have subordinates below, but all are responsive to the Figurehead, I.e. Richard Branson who holds all the power within Virgin Organisation. This is a highly efficient structure base for communications as each worker has a superior to report to, so there is no breakdown in communications within the organisation. Unfortunately a big drawback with web structure is that if any large problems arrive, it is usually superiors and figureheads who are the first in firing line of blame, as they are the ones with power, especially the chief executive, Richard Branson in the Virgin Example.

The final organisational structure is cluster, which can be classed as a risky first choice if it was for a growing business, but this kind of structure works in certain industries. This structure is where there is a 'cluster' of people, but all work independently yet for the same organisation. This works efficiently within hospitals, as each doctor, nurse, etc. know what they are doing, and their role within the organisation, yet work as individuals, but there are crossovers as working in teams.

With these four structures mentioned, it is logical to question, why is there more than one type of structure? And there are a multiple of reasons why there is diversity in organisational structures. One of the biggest reasons why there is a big diversity in organisational structures is Industry. This is a significant variable for organisations, because of the implications of industry age, and where the organisation stands compared to competition in an industry.# An example of this is the electronics industry, more specifically the mobile phone industry within electronics, there is fierce competition, as well as a rapidly changing market for mobile phones to keep with, where instability is constant within the industry. A further example is within the study done by Hrebiniak and Snow(1980) whom in a study showed that perceptions of environmental uncertainty, interorganisational influence, and the degree of structural decentralization varied by industry. The Data collected by Hrebiniak and Snow also showed that structural response to environmental and social uncertainty was affected by industry.#

A second reason for the diversity in types of organisations and structures is technology. Mannari (1981) defined technology as the means by which an organizations outputs are created.# It can be argued that if the organisation holds a better fit with their technology and/or the technology of today, then it is plausible to state that their structure would be more efficient and would equate into their being more profits. But there is a flaw with this thinking, for that technology could downgrade jobs, and even more extreme abolish jobs, this would destroy culture within an organisation as it would get rid of what the organisation is built up on, the workers, as in the people. Then again it can do the complete opposite and create jobs and add to the culture. But technology does certainly add to differences within structures, where some structures may benefit more with new technology and adapt quickly, such as cluster structure.

Possible biggest influence on the diversity of structures is the environment, after all it is the environment that is the organisation's source of input and place of outputs. It is where the organisation exchanges relations with a set of persons or groups in the environment surrounding the organisation.# It is clear that organisations must adapt to their environment in order to maintain and even increased productivity and effectiveness, there also have been a large number of studies into structure and environment relations, Burns and Stalker (1961) are a notable example. They outlined that successful firms that are within a stable environment had tendencies to have a bureaucratic structure