Abstract
Organisational structure is one of the core aspects that contribute to organisational performance. It can thus be said that it is the single most critical part of ensuring that the organization achieves its organisational objectives. This study examined the impact of organisational structure on the organisational performance of the Property Administration Services Department (PAS) within an organisation located at the Rosherville Industrial Area in Johannesburg South, South Africa. The study intended to give a practical perspective on the impact of a complex organisational structure on elements of personnel job satisfaction and departmental performance. The research instrument was designed to establish the elements that influence the composition of the organisational structure. Data analysis was done through descriptive and inferential statistics. The conclusion showed the inference between these elements and the actual aim of this study. The study did not directly compare the analysis of performance and organisational structure influence on it but rather aimed at establishing the general consensus by the participants on the likelihood of them accepting suggestions and recommendations of the study. It was evident that the organisational structure is ineffective. The ineffectiveness of the structure was observed to have been a contributing factor to the low job satisfaction levels within the participants. The context of the study identified staff morale as the main contributor to poor performance. Therefore, it could be concluded that since the organisational structure negatively impacted staff morale, it also inadvertently negatively affected the performance of the department.
Keywords: Organisational structure, Organisational culture, Organisational performance, Organisational structure, Alignment.
Received: 4 January 2019 / Revised: 15 February 2019 / Accepted: 18 March 2019/ Published: 22 April 2019
Contribution/ Originality
This study contributes to the existing literature in the field of organisational structure effectiveness. The study results are based on practically evaluated current existing organisational structure within the organisation used for this study.
1. INTRODUCTION
In any organization, one of the most valuable assets is considered to be the person within that organization. For the effectiveness and alignment of personnel with the organisation’s vision, it is of utmost importance to have leadership and management systems and personnel that are effective and efficient in ensuring business alignment and thus business accountability and sustainability. The management systems in place shall be such that the organisational structure is effective for the business objectives of the organisation. This also applies to departmental objectives as single departmental outputs or performance directly influence or contribute to the overall organisation’s performance. Most organisations do have some sort of an organisational structure. These structures are developed and based on theory. It is presumed by Maquire (2003) that because theory claims that a particular organisational structure is effective in a particular type of an organisation, then it should work on most, if not all, similar organisations. The study conducted was aimed at highlighting the influence the organisational structure has on the organisation’s performance.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
A number of scholarly articles and text books were reviewed during the literature review.
2.1. Organisational Structure
According to Business Dictionary (2018) “an organisation is a social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. McNamera (2018) further defines an organisation in its simplest form as “a person, a group or people intentionally organised to accomplish an overall, common goal or set of goals”. According to Robbins et al. (2014) “an organisational structure is defined as a system that determines how job tasks are formally divided, grouped and coordinated within an organisation”. In the context of this study, the definition of an organisation as given by McNamera (2018) in conjunction with the organisational structure definition as given by Robbins et al. (2014) provided the core definition of an organisational structure in terms of this study. This study thus defined the organisational structure as “a system that determines how tasks are formally structured and coordinated within a group that is intentionally organised to accomplish a common goal” (Robbins et al., 2014; McNamera, 2018). Each department or division within an organisation directly contributes to the overall organisational performance, thus the criticality of analysing each department’s performance in order to determine what impact it has on the overall organisational performance. The business objective is to have an organisation in which all departments are in line with the organisation’s main objectives. Shields (2016) identified two main organisational structures. These are a mechanistic structure and an organic structure. The mechanistic structure is said to be more formalized with high specialization and high administrative intensity while the organic structure is said to be less formalized. It is thus evident that all organisational structures may experience challenges based on the circumstances around the organisation at a given point in time. Since most organisational structures are fixed processes, the process to change them is very lengthy and this process cannot be adapted to all changes within the organisation, especially temporal or short-term changes. For an organisation to ensure that its organisational structure is always effective, it should ensure that the structure is flexible and/or adaptable to most anticipated circumstances.
2.2. Organisational Culture
In McLaughlin (2018) it can be established that every organisation has a culture of some sort. In the context of organisations, culture can simply be defined as a way of doing things within that organisation. According to McLaughlin (2018) organisational culture is defined as a “system of assumptions, values, and beliefs, which governs how people behave in organisations”. McLaughlin (2018) further states that these shared values have a strong influence on the people in the organisation and dictate how they dress, act, and perform their jobs. Every organisation develops and maintains its own unique culture which provides guidelines and boundaries for the behaviour of the members of that organisation (McLaughlin, 2018). According to Rafaeli and Worline (1999), “to understand the cultural system of an organisation is to understand the reactions, interpretations, and actions of organisational members, and how those actions, thoughts, and feelings are shaped by the collectivity”. Rafaeli and Worline (1999) introduced the case of organisational symbols in order to understand organisational culture. According to Rafaeli and Worline (1999) as cited in Rafaeli and Worline (1999) “symbols are integral to organisational life. They are not simply by-products of organisations but rather elements that structure members’ active construction of sense, knowledge and behaviour”. A simple definition of organisational symbol from a dictionary definition by Chevalier and Cheerbrant in 1994, as cited in Rafaeli and Worline (1999) is given as “a thing that stands for an idea”. However, Rafaeli and Worline (1999) also argued that this gives the impression that organisational symbols are randomly selected. They thus refer to organisational symbols as “visible, physical manifestations of organisations and indicators of organisational life”. Organisational culture in this context is considered as the way of doing things for the department. It is about how the department responds to situations. This is in relation to time, resources and personnel attitude. Robbins and Coulter (2005) as cited in Tsai (2011) also described organisational culture as “the shared values, beliefs, or perceptions held by employees within an organisation or organisational unit”. Tsai (2011) stated that “the pervasiveness of an organisational culture requires that management recognize its underpinning dimensions and its impact on employer-related variables such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment and performance”. Organisational culture is not only concerned with the cohesiveness of the organisational members, however, organisational culture can be said to have an influence on the job satisfaction as asserted by Tsai (2011).
2.2.1. Challenges within an Organisational Structure
Determining challenges within an organisational structure is critical for one to recommend an alternative for an already existing organisational structure. According to Khaleghi et al. (2013) “organisational structure plays an important role in the success of the organisation”. According to Robbins (1991) as cited in Ahmed (2012), an organisational structure must be clear to everyone so as to avoid confusion about the reporting protocol and the actual approach to the functioning of the organisation. Some of the challenges faced by organisational structures as indicated in an article by Root (2017) are “departmental loyalty, new management, confusion and company goals”. Organisational structures are set up to define the duties of each department and to determine each department’s objectives and contribute to the overall organisation’s performance and objectives. According to Root (2017) one of the dangers of creating departments is the appearance of different groups’ mentality between the departments whereby each group sees themselves as independent of the other instead of working together for the better good of the organisation. Root (2017) also stresses that new management can also pose challenges to an organisational structure. Root (2017) further states that “if there have not been changes of management for many years, the organisation may start to settle into doing things following a particular approach”. However, changes in management can result in challenges on the organisational structure if the new management does not adopt the previous management’s management style. Within the PAS department, management changes have been a norm in the last few years. This, therefore, results in the organisational structure having to be changed every time new management changes the focus of the department. Within an organisation, effective communication is identified by Root (2017) as one of the critical aspects of any business environment. Root (2017) stated that “without communication, new ideas and processes can get confused”. This can result in the misalignment of the organisation’s objectives. Therefore, if departments are not communicating effectively, then confusion may affect the effectiveness of the organisational structure. Lastly, Root (2017) indicated that “an organisational structure is only as effective when the entire organisation utilizes it properly”.
2.3. Organisational Performance
In a study conducted by Balci et al. (2016) performance was described as “a total endeavour to attain a particular goal”. According to Torrington and Hall (1995), as cited by Balci et al. (2016) “performance with regard to function is associated with the terms, frequency, productivity and output and is viewed as a result of the interaction between individual talent and motivation”. Yanfei Xi and Fantiani (2011) as cited by Balci et al. (2016) stated that organisational performance which could be considered an indispensable part of the organisation and the main reason for organisational survival, is the total output of an employee as a result of certain processes, including job attitude and organisational behaviour”. According to Dusing (2017) organisational performance is a general term referring to an assessment of the overall success or health of the organisation. Organisational performance can thus be defined as the measure of the outcome as compared to the target or inputs within an organisation for the organisation to reach its goals. Organisational performance is important to determine whether the organisation is reaching its goals or fulfilling its objectives. Goodman, Pennings and Associates (1917) as cited by Henri (2004) indicated that organisational performance or effectiveness mainly reflects a construct perspective in which the focus is on the definition of the concept in terms of assessment and conceptualization. In the context of this study, the criticality of organisational performance was at the heart of the overall objectives.
2.3.1. Relationship between Organisational Structure and Performance
The organisational structure is developed such that it would positively contribute to the organisation’s overall performance. Robbins and Coulter (2001) as cited in Avdelidou-Fischer (2015) stressed the importance of measuring organisational performance and emphasized how vital an organisational structure is since it is “the vehicle through which managers can coordinate the activities of the various functions or divisions to exploit fully their expertise and capabilities”. Avdelidou-Fischer (2015) further indicated that an organisational structure is simply the process by which organisations formally divide, group, and coordinate job tasks. For any organisation to be effective and efficient, its organisational structure needs to be in line with the organisation’s core objectives. A study conducted by Khaleghi et al. (2013) indicated that “an organisational structure plays a crucial role in the success of an organisation”. Khaleghi et al. (2013) further stated that a “successful organisation normally uses a horizontal and less complicated structure”. The study intended to identify the relationship between the organisation’s formality, complexity and concentration to its performance. The results of that study by Khaleghi et al. (2013) indicated that “Although there were some positive impacts from the formality and concentration on the organisational performance, there was no indication of any possible effect from the complexity of the structure on the organisational performance”. In this research study, the departmental performance relied fairly on the organisational structure. A horizontal structure is more effective when it comes to performance measurement as opposed to a vertical or hierarchical organisational structure. This statement was supported by Ostroff (1999) when he stated that, “the horizontal organisation promotes the understanding of the overall benefits of their work within the organisation”. In essence, many organisations continuously review their organisational structures in order to ensure that the organisational structure used is the most effective and efficient at any point in time as claimed by Aquinas (2008).
2.3.2. The Impact of Organisational Culture within an Organization
A study by Joharis (2016) on “the impact of organisational culture, organisational structure and job satisfaction on teacher organisational commitment at senior high schools in Medan, Indonesia”, found that one of the conclusions was that, organisational culture, organisational structure and job satisfaction at the same time contributed to job performance. This clearly shows that in essence, one cannot separate performance from the organisational structure and culture. According to Tsui et al. (2006) “The organisational culture is a consequence of the visionary and charismatic leadership of the CEO”. This means that there is a strong relationship between leadership and the organisational culture. It can thus be said that organisational culture has a direct impact on the organisation as a whole. Tsui et al. (2006) argued that in many circumstances, leader’s actions have little effect on the organisational performance. They further argued that factors such as “characteristics of individuals, jobs or organisations can act as substitutes for leadership and negate leader’s influence on the organisation”. Differently stated, it can be said that the organisational culture has more impact on the organisational performance than the leader’s influence. The leadership shall thus be in line with the organisational culture. The intent of this study, however, only concentrated on the organisational structure impact on the department’s performance. However, organisational culture was also discussed for the purpose of understanding the context of this research study. Organisational culture in this context was considered as the way of doing things in the department. It was about how the department responds to situations. This was in relation to time, resources and personnel attitude.
2.3.3. Organisational Structure and Culture Alignment Impact on Performance
An organisational structure influences the culture of the organisation. Organisational culture is one of the core drivers of performance. Every organisational structure and culture must be aligned to the overall organisation’s vision and mission. In a study by Glavas and Godwin (2013) it can be said that in the event of misalignment, the performance of that organisation may be negatively affected. There are a number of reasons for organisational alignment. According to Schweitzer and Iyengar (2013) some of the reasons for alignment within an organisation are to help an organisation work cohesively, in coordinating everyone’s activities so the organisation as a whole can work towards the same goals and give employees direction and vision of what matters most in the organisation. An organisation’s performance is the key to its success. If the performance of an organisation is directly influenced by the organisational culture, it is therefore critical to understand the organisational culture of an organisation before recommending changes to its organisational structure as per the assertion by Schweitzer and Iyengar (2013).
2.3.4. Streamlining Organisational Performance through Departments
One of the ways of streamlining organisational performance is through its departments. Each department focuses on its own objectives and performance which contributes to the overall organisation’s performance. Sometimes there can be departments within the larger department which are sub-departments of the larger department. A study by Ahmed (2017) on, “The Importance of The Organisational Structuring and Departmentalization in the Workplace” defined departmentalization of an enterprise as a process whereby a number of departments are created based on the nature of their functions. According to Ahmed (2017) “departmentalization helps to develop new managers by providing them with the opportunity to take independent decisions and initiatives and this consequently creates an environment whereby highly skilled subordinates can get an opportunity of being promoted to higher levels of management”. In the same study, Ahmed (2017) stated that if the departmental functions expand, the organisation can further sub-divide that department so as to share the workload more efficiently. The advantages of departmentalization by function given by Ahmed (2017) is that, “it is the most logical and natural form of departmentalization, it brings about specialization which makes optimum utilization of human resources and it also lays emphasis on each and every activity. The departmentalization by function could also enable top management to exercise control over a number of functions and facilitates delegation of authority and therefore, reduces the work burden of a top manager and it eliminates the duplication of effort that brings efficiency”. The attestation by Ahmed (2017) in the study conducted shows that departmentalization results in a single point of authority within a department. In this case, accountability can be appropriately directed to an individual. When performance as one of the key performance indicators is evaluated, the single source of accountability is responsible for ensuring that the department’s performance is up to the acceptable standard. It has also shown that departmentalization can be used to streamline organisational performance. According to Ahmed (2017) departmentalization leads to the benefit of applying the gained knowledge in order to achieve the required goals. This then improves the efficiency of the organisation. In this study by Ahmed (2017) it is however stated that there are also disadvantages of departmentalization such as the negative impact on the personnel’s attitude towards their work. Ahmed (2017) further stated that “in departmentalization, the standard of performance of each department and objective to be achieved is planned and when actual performance deviates from the planned performance, these can be addressed accordingly”.
2.4. Accountability
According to Business Dictionary (2018) accountability is “the obligation of an individual or organisation to account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner”. Wigmore (2014) defines accountability as an assurance that an individual or an organisation will be evaluated on their performance related to something for which they are responsible. Wigmore (2014) argues that the term “accountability” is related to responsibility but seen more from the perspective of oversight. Accountability can be both personal and organisational. Wigmore (2014) states that “organisational or corporate accountability involves being answerable to all of an organisation’s stakeholders for all actions and results”. This corporate accountability implies that an organisation must be answerable for any deviations from its policies, mission statements and/or vision statements. It is also argued by Wigmore (2014) that in its simplicity, corporate or organisational accountability is often broadened to imply a requirement for organisations to function in a more responsible, ethical and sustainable manner. This is generally considered as one of the two main principles in corporate governance, viz., accountability and transparency as asserted by Wigmore (2014). In an article about avoidance of personal accountability, Gibson (2008) as cited in Laskowski (2013) relates the leader’s approach to accountability by stating that “as a leader, one is the ultimate arbiter of accountability, but one should never be the primary arbiter of accountability”. According to Laskowski (2013) “without commitment and clarity, it is impossible for team members to hold each other personally accountable for their behaviour”. This means that the organisation should ensure that each personnel as an individual should have clear responsibilities for them to be held accountable. The organisation as a whole should be positioned such that it can be held accountable to its functioning. This may include amongst others, performance, financial, social responsibility, etc. As attested by Laskowski (2013) there must first be clearly defined responsibilities for the organisation for it to be held accountable. In the context of this study, the organisational responsibilities need to be clarified before the department can be held accountable for any of their actions as it is unfair to hold an individual or an organisation accountable for things that are not clearly defined as their responsibilities. In a study about organisational responses to accountability requirements, Gray et al. (2017) found that organisations engage in active, as well as passive, forms of compliance. The study indicated that internal policies, practices and/or procedures are changed to meet accountability requirements.
2.5. Management Theory of Argyris
According to Dininni (2017) Chris Argyris explored the concept of organisational learning and its impact on a company’s growth, effectiveness and adaptability. Dininni (2017) further stated that Argyris’ theories focused on single-loop learning and double-loop learning, the immaturity or maturity continuum, organisational communication and the effects of each of these on employee motivation, accountability and empowerment. This suggests that Chris Argyris’ theories not only focused on the organisational behaviour but also on the individuals within the organisation as they touch on the employee motivation, accountability and empowerment. In an interview by Christensen (2008) Chris Argyris stated that the key to changing behaviour is not simply changing behaviour, because it is possible to keep the same theory in your head and change your behaviour. The key is to change the way people reason about their behaviour, based on the theories in their heads. The challenge is to help individuals transform their espoused theories into theories-in-use by learning a new set of skills and a new set of governing values. Chris Argyris also argued that although people reason and take actions, they can be taught how to identify their reasoning when they take any action. In essence, this means that a key to changing behaviour is not mainly about the change in behaviour itself but the understanding of the principle or reasoning behind one’s action. Chris Argyris as cited in Vliet (2010) stated that most people define learning too narrowly as mere ‘problem-solving’, so they focus on identifying and correcting errors in the external environment. He stated that solving problems is important, but if learning is to persist, managers and employees must also look inwards. There is a need to reflect critically on their own behaviour, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organisation’s problems and then change how they act. According to Dininni (2017) Chris Argyris stated that in contrast to double-loop learning, which questions underlying assumptions, single-loop learning, which solves problems superficially and symptomatically, fails to address the real issues that make companies ineffective. Dininni (2017) further stated that Argyris’ theory also asserted that open communication within an organisation, normally considered a good thing, can block learning and hinder progress if it is based on defensiveness, denial of real problems, inability to face tough issues and refusal to examine one’s own attitudes and contributions to the problem. Chris Argyris’ theory, according to Dininni (2017) also stated that “successful employee empowerment requires management to provide opportunities for personal growth in the same seven areas in which children must mature as they approach adulthood”. These are activity, independence, behaviours, interests, perspectives, equality or superiority and self-awareness or self-control. Chris Argyris management theory states that employees must move from passivity to activity, dependence to independence, few behaviours to many behaviours, shallow interests to deep interests, short-term perspectives to long-term perspectives, subordination to equality or superiority and non-self-awareness to self-awareness or self-control (Dininni, 2017). These assertions suggest that organisational learning is part of the principles that can be used for improved performance of an organisation.
Figure-1. Organisational Learning.
Source: Rasulov (2017).
In Figure 1 above, Rasulov (2017) highlights the sequence Chris Argyris followed in his study on organisational learning. This involved starting with the assumptions that the organisation knows why it does what it does. This is followed by the strategies and techniques which determine what the organisation is actually doing. Thereafter, the results are what is achieved from the strategies and techniques. Figure 1 shows how single-loop learning and double-loop learning relates to organisational learning. Single-loop learning is focused on solving the problems that arise or correcting the errors identified from the undesired results of the strategies implemented. On the other hand, double-loop learning is concerned with reviewing the entire chain of thought, from the assumptions, values or beliefs of the organisation to the strategies implemented in order to ensure the desired results. According to Zaleznik (1992) the efficient manager adopts impersonal attitudes towards goals, which themselves are deeply embedded in the organisation’s history and culture while leaders on the other hand are active instead of reactive, shaping ideas and adopting a personal attitude toward goals. Zaleznik (1992) further states that managers view work as an enabling process involving a combination of people and ideas interacting to establish strategies and make decisions, while leaders work from high-risk positions and are disposed to seek out risk when opportunity arises. Therefore, it can be said that within an organisation, managers may be inclined to using the single-loop learning approach as opposed to leaders who may be inclined to adopting the double-loop learning approach. According to Argyris (1973) organisations come into being when goals to be achieved are too complex for any one individual. Chris Argyris also mentions the drive behind why employees do what they do. He indicates that, “employees produce the energy for the organisation and they do that to seek individual gain”. This gain is linked to their needs (Argyris, 1973). From the Argyris theory, it can be said that an organisation can be improved through Single and Double Loop Learning.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research study was contextual in nature. It took place in the confines of the environment of the population where the study was taking place. According to Lappe (2000) the aim of correlational research is to describe the relationship among variables rather than to infer cause and effect relationships. Lappe (2000) further stated that descriptive correlational studies are useful for describing how one phenomenon is related to another in situations where the researcher has no control over the independent or outcome variable. The statement by Lappe (2000) gave rise to the decision to select the correlation research design as the most appropriate research design structure that was used, as the outcome of the research was meant to identify the relationship between the variables. In the context of this study, the variables that were considered are the departmental organisational structure as the independent variable and departmental performance as the dependent variable. This means that the research had to conclude on the impact the organisational structure has on the organisational performance which may or may not be directly influenced by the organisational structure. The comparison was based on the current organisational structure and performance as compared to a possibly more effective organisational structure that would positively contribute to improved performance.
A quantitative research method was used in which the questionnaire results were used for analysis as the questions used in the survey questionnaire were aimed at identifying particular trends or feelings of the respondents in relation to each question or statement posed. A positivist research strategy was thus the appropriate research strategy to use as Cohen and Crabtree (2006) had suggested that the positivist paradigm is grounded in the theoretical belief that there is an objective reality that can be known to the researcher if the researcher uses the correct methods and applies those methods in a correct manner. The researcher’s approach was objective as the intent was not to purposely sway the result in one direction or the other but rather focus on the results of the data collected. The target population was the entire PAS personnel. A census approach was used to maximise the response rate. There were a total of 250 personnel within the PAS Department who were approached to take part on the study. This included personnel at different levels and with different experiences within the department. A probability sampling strategy was used with a simple random sampling technique. The total number of the target population was taken as n = 250 and the sampled participants was taken as N = 250. A total number of 25 participants formed part of the pilot study.
According to Opoku et al. (2016) the choice of suitable data collection and analysis methods for any research study is determined by the paradigm of the research and the nature of the research question(s).
A survey questionnaire was used as a data collection tool for this study. The responses were grouped together according to the statements and an analysis of the grouped responses was conducted. Each statement represented part of the objectives. The outcome of the analysis of the responses was then aligned to the variables of which the study intended to correlate. Thereafter, a correlation between the two variables, the organisational structure and the organisational performance, was done. Likert-scale type statements were used during data collection. According to Boone and Boone (2012) a Likert-scale “is composed of a series of four or more Likert-type items that are combined into a single composite score or variable during the data analysis process”. Data was collected and analysed from a positivist paradigm. An enumerative or descriptive statistical analysis was used during the data analysis process (Jarausch and Hardy, 1991). The collected data was represented both in tables of which the tables were used as the data source for graphical or figure representation of the results. For each section of the questionnaire, a table and a graphical presentation was developed. These contributed to the overall representation of the results for conclusion purposes. Inferential statistical analysis was also used to infer the findings to the general public within the same context of the study. A basic inferential statistics in the form of correlation was used. A correlation coefficient as explained by Byme (2007) “measures the strength of association between two variables, and reveals whether the correlation is negative or positive”.
4. DATA ANALYSIS
The data collection instrument was composed of four sections. Section A entailed the demographic information, Section B, the job satisfaction, Section C, the impact of the organisational structure on the departmental performance and Section D the processes for the organisation to streamline the department’s performance. The participants were identifiable as shown in Table 1:
Table-1. Participant Identification.
Participant Identification |
||
Position |
Level |
Participants’ Codes |
Manager |
Management |
PMP 1 |
Administration HOD's |
Management |
AMP 1 to 4 |
Engineering/Maintenance HOD's |
Management |
EMP 1 to 5 |
General Work HODs |
Management |
GMP 1 to 3 |
Technical/Skilled |
Supervision |
TSP 1 to 21 |
Non-Technical/Semi-skilled |
Employees |
NEP 1 to 216 |
The collected data was presented as per the pie charts in Figure 2 below. These were related to the participants’ service with the organisation, participants’ service with the department, years in current positions, qualifications of participants, gender composition, participants’ age and race composition.
Figure-2. Data representation as pie charts.
The data showed in summary that 64% of the participants had been with the organisation for between 1 and 5 years, 62% had been in the department under study for between 1 to 5 years, 62% had been in their current position for between 1 to 5 years, 84% only have up to matric as their highest qualification, 57% were female while 43% were male, 55% were between the age of 30 to 39 years and 91% of them were of black African ethnicity
4.1. Specific Analysis
From the core data collected, specific analysis was conducted for the purpose of inference as the core data did not directly correlate the variables identified for the study.
4.1.1. Job Satisfaction
The main objective of the job satisfaction section was to measure the level of job satisfaction in order to identify the general feeling amongst the participants. Statements were given to the participants. The participants had to respond to each statement by stating whether they strongly agree, agree, do not know, disagree and strongly disagree. The participants’ responses are presented in Figure 3.
Figure-3. Job satisfaction survey.
Based on the statements presented to the participants and their responses, it was evident that the majority of the participants (88.14%) indicated that they were not satisfied with their current conditions or jobs. The correlation inherent to job satisfaction for each statement was based on the responses for each statement whereby some responses presented a positive scenario and others a negative scenario which would indicate an agreement or disagreement of the respondents towards the statements given. It was noted that majority of the respondents disagreed with the majority of the statements given which meant that the level of their job satisfaction was low.
Job satisfaction and performance are related. According to a study by Bakotic (2016) there was evidence of the existence of a clear link between employee’s job satisfaction and organisational performance. Bakotic (2016) concluded that it could be stated that job satisfaction strongly determines organisational performance as opposed to organisational performance determining job satisfaction. In the context of this research, it can be said that since only 11.86% of the participants responded positively to job satisfaction in indicating that they are satisfied with their job, then performance is likely to be positively influenced by 11.86% of the participants while 88.14% negatively was affecting it. According to a case study by Awan and Asghar (2014) it was concluded that in general, there is a relationship between job satisfaction and performance. Although this study did not directly correlate job satisfaction with the participants’ performance, it can be inferred that the high percentage of participants, at 88.14%, who indicated that they were not satisfied with their jobs was one of the negative contributors to departmental performance.
4.1.2. Organisational Structure Impact on Performance
Organisational structure impact on performance is presented by Figure 4:
Figure-4. Organisational structure impact on the departmental performance.
The figure above shows that a high number of participants, at 85%, indicated a level of disagreement or strongly disagreement towards statements that were intended to determine their opinion on the impact of the organisational structure on the departmental performance. Maduenyi et al. (2015) stated that organisational structure has an impact on organisational performance. The paper further concluded that performance of an organization largely depends on the structure of the organization. This means that if an organization has an adequately developed organisational structure, it would be easy to identify any shortfalls that may affect performance. An adequately developed organisational structure in this context is one whereby all personnel within the structure understand their roles, the roles of others and the influence of their performance on the overall organization.
4.1.3. PAS Organisational Structure Impact on Performance
Organisational structure and performance are two variables that were considered by this research study. Their relationship formed part of the analysis of this research study so as to understand the impact of the current organisational structure on the performance of the department. According to Nahm et al. (2003) for an organisation to reduce its response time, its organisational structure must be developed such that it is effective. In this organisational structure according to Nahm et al. (2003) workers manage their work independently. Response time is one of the influencers of performance, thus the attestation by Nahm et al. (2003) which indicated that organisational structures with fewer layers in the hierarchy have reduced response time which would positively contribute towards performance. A study conducted by Bai et al. (2017) showed that “cross-functional integration improves performance of the team”. According to Richard et al. (2009) as cited in Hao et al. (2012) “organisational performance is anchored around a multi-dimensional conceptualization related predominantly to stakeholders, heterogeneous market circumstances, and time”. Hao et al. (2012) introduced the concept of organisational learning. Organisational learning, according to Morales et al. (2007) as cited in Hao et al. (2012) is the firm’s capability to improve performance based on experience. Hao et al. (2012) further cited Sakalas and Venskus (2007) stating that organisational structure is an important factor in knowledge management, and learning organisation is impossible to realize without respective organisation management structures. Wong and Cheung (2008) as cited in Hao et al. (2012) asserted that there is a relationship between organisational learning and performance. They further stated that different kinds of organisational learning relate to performance. In this study, the organisational structure being studied showed a negative contribution towards performance.
4.1.4. Statistical Analysis
The standard deviation, effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated. During the calculations, the data results were further grouped into two groups. The two groups were the group that supported the recommendations (group 1) and the group that had low job satisfaction levels (group 2). Mean values were calculated from the two groups and for group 1 it was found to be 203.4285714 with a median of 225 and a mode of 225 and for group 2 , the mean value was found to be 29.6875 with a median of 3.5 and a mode of 0. Although the standard deviation had minimal impact on this study, it was however calculated in order to indicate that the respondents did not all fall into the same category on the Likert-scale responses. The standard deviation for group 1 was found to be 59.2007 while for group 2 it was 66.756. The standard deviation formula used considered only the sample data used. Figure 5 below presents the data that was extrapolated from the mean value and standard deviation calculation to determine the effect sizes.
Figure-5. Values used for the effect size calculations.
Cohen’s d, Glass’ delta and Hedges’ g were calculated and found to be as presented in Table 2:
Table-2. Effect size determinants.
Effect Size Determinants |
Value |
Cohen's d |
2.753792 |
Glass's delta |
2.934779 |
Hedges' g |
2.753792 |
In this context, since the two groups have different standard deviations and the difference in the sample size is negligible, Cohen’s d and Hedges’ g was disregarded. Instead, Glass’s delta was considered. This means that the two groups differ by 2.75379 standard deviations. However, this was not considered as an issue as it only indicated how much the two groups differ in terms of standard deviation. The two groups were not the direct variables used in this research, rather they were used as secondary data for the final analysis as they provided the research with information that was used for the descriptive analysis. The calculated Glass’s delta indicated that there was a relationship between group 1 and group 2, however their means were different. Although the confidence interval between the two groups was found to be between 162.05091 and 185.43109, this means that one can be 95% confident that the difference between the two populations means lie between 162.05091 and 185.43109 only if the same process of sampling method is used. For inferential statistics analysis, a standard Confidence Interval using the t-distribution was used. Using the mathportal computation method, the mean values were verified while the t-values calculated. The t-value that indicates the difference between the sample data and the null hypothesis was found to be 7.4929, the degrees of freedom to be 28 and the critical value to be 2.048. The two groups of values used were only for inference purposes to the main aim of this study.
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Although no reference to the actual measurements of performance within the department was made, it was evident that the department’s organisational structure is ineffective. The ineffectiveness of the organisational structure was observed to have been contributing to the low levels of job satisfaction within the participants in the study. Thus it can be concluded that there is general low staff morale within the department. Therefore, it could be concluded that since the organisational structure negatively impacted the staff morale, it also inadvertently negatively affected the performance of the department. This then implied that the current organisational structure does have a negative impact on the overall performance of the department. As indicated within the literature review, the departmental performance also influences the overall organisational performance, therefore it can be further concluded that the current departmental organisational structure is negatively affecting the organisational performance. Since it is difficult to measure the influence of each demographic profile element such as age, race, gender, level of education, period in the current position and period in the organization, on performance, it can only be relied on inference regarding what impact these have on organisational performance. Also, the research instrument was designed to establish a number of other elements such as job satisfaction, willingness to engage and support new proposals that influence the organisational structure composition; the conclusion showed the inference between these elements and the actual aim of this study. The study did not directly compare the analysis of performance and organisational structure influence on it but rather aimed at establishing the general consensus by the participants on the likelihood of them accepting suggestions and recommendations of the study. This then was used to conclude that it is clear that the current organisational structure has a negative impact on the participants, thus negatively affecting their general performance. Personnel performance could then be directly linked to departmental performance. Thus the assertion by the researcher in this study stated that the current organisational structure negatively affects/impacts organisational performance. The literature showed that according to Robbins (1991) as cited in Ahmed (2012), an organisational structure must be clear to everyone so as to avoid confusion about the reporting protocol and the actual approach to the functioning of the organization. The acceptance or agreement by the participants in relation to the recommendations brought forward implies that they are not satisfied with the current environment. The recommendations brought forward were related to the organisational structure review, skills improvement requirements, delegation of authority review and team building.
| Funding: This study received no specific financial support. |
| Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
| Contributors/Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
REFERENCES
Ahmed, M.A., 2017. The importance of the organizational structuring and departmentalization in workplace. The Journal of Middle East and North Africa Sciences, 3(3): 30-38.Available at: https://doi.org/10.12816/0034796.
Aquinas, P.G., 2008. In: Organization structure and design. New Delhi: Excel Books. pp: 7.
Argyris, C., 1973. Personality and organizational theory revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(2): 141-167.
Avdelidou-Fischer, N., 2015. The relationship between organizational structure and performance: The case of the fortune 500. Value Creation in Multinational Enterprise: 169-206.
Awan, P.D.A.G. and I. Asghar, 2014. Impact of employee job satisfaction on their performance - a case study of banking secto in Muzaffargarh District, Pakistan. Global Journal of Human Resources Managemen, 2(4): 71-94.
Bai, W., Y. Feng, Y. Yue and L. Feng, 2017. Organizational structure, cross-functional integration and performance of new product development team. Procedia Engineering, 174(1): 621-629.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.198.
Bakotic, D., 2016. Relationship between job satisfaction and organizational performance. Economic Research-Ekonomska Instrazivanja, 29(1): 118-130.
Balci, A., O. Inci, P. Mahmut, S. Ahmet and B. Erkut, 2016. Organizational socilalization and its relation with orgnaizational performance in high schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(9): 71-81.Available at: https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i9.1685.
Boone, H.N. and D.A. Boone, 2012. Analyzing likert data. Journal of Extension, 50(2): 1-5.
Business Dictionary, 2018. Bd dictionary: Definition-organization. Available from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization.html [Accessed 25 February 2018].
Christensen, K., 2008. Thought leader interview with Chris Arbyris. The Magazine of the Rotman School of Management, January. pp: 10-13.
Cohen, D. and B. Crabtree, 2006. Qualitative research guidelines project. New Jersey: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Dininni, J., 2017. Management theory of Chris Argyris. Available from https://www.business.com/ [Accessed 27 February 2018].
Dusing, R.P., 2017. Examining the relationship between employee satisfaction and organizational performance in higher education. Parkway: PoQuest.
Glavas, A. and L.N. Godwin, 2013. Is the perception of ‘goodness’ good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1): 15-27.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1323-5.
Gray, C.S., W. Berta, R. Deber and J. Lum, 2017. Organizational responses to accountability requirements: Do we get what we expect? Health Care Management Review, 42(1): 65-75.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000089.
Hao, Q., H. Kasper and J. Muehlbacher, 2012. How does organizational structure influence performance through learning and innovation in Australia and China. Chinese Management Studies, 6(1): 36-52.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/17506141211213717.
Henri, J.F., 2004. Performance measurement and organizational effectiveness: Brigding the gap. Quebec City: University of Laval.
Jarausch, K.H. and K.A. Hardy, 1991. In: Quantitative methods for historians: A guide to research, data, and statistics. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. pp: 1-22.
Joharis, M., 2016. The effect of leadership, organizational culture, work motivation and job satisfaction on teacher organizational commitment at senior high school in Medan. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 5(10): 1-8.
Khaleghi, D., H. Alavi and M. Alimiri, 2013. A study on the effects of organizational structure on success of performance measurement. Management Science Letters, 3(6): 1611-1614.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2013.05.028.
Lappe, J.M., 2000. Taking the mystery out of research: Descriptive correlational design. Orthopaedic Nursing, 19(2): 81.
Laskowski, N., 2013. Five team dysfunctions that could spell disaster for any IT department. Available from http://searchcio.techtarget.com/0 [Accessed 4 March 2018].
Maduenyi, S., A.O. Oke, O. Fadeyi and M.A. Ajagbe, 2015. Impact of organizational structure in organizational performance. s.l. International Conference on African Development Issues.
Maquire, E.E., 2003. In: Organizational structure in American police agencies. Newy York: State University of New York Press. pp: 218-220.
McLaughlin, J., 2018. What is organizational culture. Available from https://study.com/academy/[Accessed [Accessed 4 03 2018].
McNamera, C., 2018. Definition of organization. Available from https://managementhelp.org/organizations/definition.htm [Accessed 25 February 2018].
Nahm, A.Y., M.A. Vonderembse and X.A. Koufteros, 2003. The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance. Journal of Operations Management, 23(1): 281-306.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(02)00107-9.
Opoku, A., V. Ahmed and J. Akotia, 2016. Choosing an appropriate research methodology and method. In: Research Methodology in the Built Environment. New York: Routledge. pp: 33-49.
Ostroff, F., 1999. What the horizontal orginization is?. In: The horizontal organization. New York: Oxford University Press. pp: 14.
Rafaeli, A. and M. Worline, 1999. Symbols in orginizational culture. In: Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Michigan: University of Michigan. pp: 1-36.
Rasulov, E., 2017. Management theory. Available from https://prezi.com/wmuxfltz0kvz/management-theory-by-elyor-rasulov/ [Accessed 4 March 2018].
Robbins, P., 1991. Organizational behaviour: Concepts, controversies and applications. 5th Edn., New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc.
Robbins, S.P., D.A.D. Cenzo and M. Coulter, 2014. Defining organizational structure. In: Fundamentals of management: Management Myths Debunked. London: Pearsons Higher Ed. pp: 106.
Root, G.N., 2017. Problems within an organizational structure. Available from smallbusiness.chron.com [Accessed 14 September 2017].
Sakalas, A. and R. Venskus, 2007. Interaction of learning organization and organizational structure. Engineering Economics, 53(3): 65-70.
Schweitzer, L. and R. Iyengar, 2013. Orginizational alignement. Washington DC: Associated American Medical Colleges.
Shields, J., 2016. Organizational structure. In: Managing employee performance and rewards: Concepts, practices, strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp: 67.
Tsai, Y., 2011. Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1): 98.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-98.
Tsui, A.S., Z.-X. Zhang, H. Wang, K.R. Xin and J.B. Wu, 2006. Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behavior and organizational culture. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2): 113-137.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.001.
Vliet, V.V., 2010. Chris Argyris. Available from https://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/chris-argyris/ [Accessed 04 March 2018].
Wigmore, I., 2014. Tech target. Available from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/accountability [Accessed 4 March 2018].
Zaleznik, A., 1992. Managers and leaders: Are they different? Houston Police Department Leadership Journal, 1(1): 47-63.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Financial Risk and Management Reviews shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |