Work Must Be Original: Decide What Structure The Two Types O

Work Must Be Original1 Decide What Structure The Two Types Of Tur

Work must be original: 1. Decide what structure the two types of turbine companies have; Functional, Matrix, Divisional, Team or Networking, etc.? Explain what characteristics each company has that make you think it is the type you specified? 2. Go to the following site to read about what the differences between a centralized and a decentralized company are. Now based on what you have learned and applying that to the two turbine companies, are they centralized or decentralized? What makes you think so? 3. Based on your answers to the questions above, discuss the differences of these two companies’ structures in a minimum of a 1 page paper in double spaced 12 pt. Times New Roman font format (not including a Title and Reference page). Make sure to cite any references that you use.

Paper For Above instruction

The organizational structures of companies deeply influence their operational effectiveness, decision-making processes, and adaptability to market changes. In analyzing two turbine companies, it is essential to determine whether their internal arrangements follow functional, matrix, divisional, team, or networking structures. Each of these structures has distinct characteristics that shape the way the companies operate and respond to external and internal demands. Additionally, understanding whether these companies are centralized or decentralized provides further insight into their management philosophies and operational flexibility. This essay explores these organizational aspects, providing a comparative analysis grounded in established organizational theory and practical observations.

Organizational Structures of Turbine Companies

To classify the organizational structure of the two turbine companies, we must consider specific characteristics observable in their operations, hierarchy, communication patterns, and decision-making processes. The first company, Company A, exhibits a clear hierarchy with specialized departments such as engineering, manufacturing, sales, and maintenance. This suggests a functional structure, where divisions are organized based on specific functions or roles. Functional structures are characterized by centralized decision-making within departments, clear authority lines, and a focus on efficiency and specialization (Burns & Stalker, 1961). In this case, Company A’s emphasis on functional departments ensures efficient workflow but may limit flexibility in responding to market changes.

Company B, on the other hand, appears to operate more like a divisional structure. It is organized around product lines, geographical regions, or customer groups, with each division operating with a certain degree of independence. This becomes evident in the way each division manages its operations, marketing, and sales strategies. Divisional structures are designed to facilitate responsiveness to specific market needs and foster accountability within divisions (Galbraith, 2002). Such a structure allows each division to adapt quickly to regional regulations or customer preferences, which is crucial for a global company dealing with turbines in diverse markets.

Centralized vs. Decentralized Management in Turbine Companies

Understanding whether a company is centralized or decentralized involves examining decision-making authority and the flow of information. Based on available information, Company A appears to lean towards centralization, with key decisions made at the corporate headquarters, especially in engineering standards, procurement policies, and financial controls. This centralized approach ensures consistency, standardization, and economies of scale but may slow down response times to local market conditions (Walley, 2010).

Conversely, Company B demonstrates characteristics of decentralization. Regional managers and division heads have significant autonomy over operational decisions, pricing, and customer relations. Decentralized structures are advantageous in complex, dynamic markets as they enable quicker decision-making and greater responsiveness (Aiken & Hage, 1968). This enables Company B to customize offerings and respond swiftly to regional or customer-specific demands, which is especially vital in the highly competitive turbine industry where technological innovations and customer preferences evolve rapidly.

Comparison of Organizational Structures and Management Styles

The primary difference between the two companies lies in their approach to authority distribution and operational focus. Company A’s functional, centralized structure emphasizes efficiency, consistency, and control. This is typical of organizations aiming for cost leadership and high standardized quality (Porter, 1985). Such structure benefits from economies of scale, especially in manufacturing turbines, which require rigorous adherence to safety standards and technical specifications.

In contrast, Company B’s divisional, decentralized strategy prioritizes flexibility, market responsiveness, and customer orientation. This structure allows regional divisions to adapt quickly to local demands, fostering innovation and customer satisfaction (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). However, decentralization can lead to challenges in maintaining uniform standards and coordinating activities across divisions, potentially increasing operational complexity.

Both structures have their advantages and disadvantages, and the choice between them depends on strategic priorities, market conditions, and organizational size. While a functional, centralized structure excels in stability and efficiency, a divisional, decentralized design enhances flexibility and customer focus. For turbine companies, balancing these aspects is crucial for sustained growth and competitiveness in a global market.

Conclusion

In summary, the organizational structures of the two turbine companies reflect different strategic orientations: one aligns more with a functional, centralized framework, optimizing efficiency and standardization; the other with a divisional, decentralized model, emphasizing responsiveness and customer adaptation. Understanding these structures provides valuable insights into how these companies manage complexity, allocate decision-making authority, and pursue their strategic objectives. As the turbine industry continues to evolve with technological advancements and environmental considerations, organizations must carefully evaluate their structural choices to remain competitive and innovative.

References

• Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1968). Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Journal of Sociology, 73(3), 325-336.
• Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. Tavistock Publications.
• Galbraith, J. R. (2002). Designing Organizations: Strategy, Structure, and Process at the Business Unit and Enterprise Levels. Jossey-Bass.
• Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and Environment. Harvard University Press.
• Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.
• Walley, K. (2010). Organizational structure and decision-making in manufacturing firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(4), 29-37.
• Galbraith, J. R. (2009). Designing Organizations: An Executive Guide to Strategy, Structure, and Process. Jossey-Bass.
• Daft, R. L. (2015). Organization Theory and Design. Cengage Learning.
• Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise. MIT Press.
• Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. Free Press.