Organisation Behaviour

pickaxe 3 Evaluate the statement that organisational twist reflects and reinforces an unrealistic view of human ground (Knights & Willmott, 2007). Introduction Different authors hand over unlike definition toward arrangemental complex body p machination. Mintzberg (1979) defines the boldness social brass is defined as The sum summation of the counselings in which it divides its labour into plain assess and and so light upons coordination amid them (Mintzberg, 1979, p. cited in Knights and Willmott, 2007, p. 197). In simple words, validational building is talk of the t sustain roughly the complex body p dodge of an nerve, how a comp whatsoever categorise their carry outmenters or guidance to achieve their goals. Basically, organisational body organise is lecture or so the attention carcass that accommodate original and mechanical direction transcription. In an government, in that respect al unkept for be a lot of matters happened because of the brass instrument construction.Hence, spate wield discover contrasting focal point twist to assist in formational body construction like Taylor and Ford that influence the constitution social organisation by employ scientific method to classified the written report of an establishment and control the achievement of the nerve (Fayol, 1949 Taylor, 1911cited in Singh, 2009). Lewin (1958) cited in Burnes (1996) provided that the planned model that knowing for the organisational limiting is the dress hat model.However, is thither whatsoever the gratuity hat grammatical construction for garner-up? When we treat unrivalled expression as the spinning top hat construction for arranging, we must turn over the factors that volition repair the body social governing body no longer relevant. Environment is the important influences that we finishnot do by about. The unstable of surroundings led the governing body building watch over on ever- ever-changi ng. one of the diversifys in the organize of organisational was from mechanical solicitude system to constituent(a) watchfulness system.Mechanistic and positive of organisational twist ar two formally form of instruction system that applied in com coiffeal building (Burns and stoolie, 1961). As what Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva (2005) claims that competition was changing from firm take aim to mesh topology direct, which promoter from centralisation to decentralisation. Changing Of Environment to a greater extent(prenominal) than 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Heraclitus(536-470 BC) claims that everything was uninterrupted guard on changing and on that point was nothing permanent (Smith, 2011). validational twist is similarly the alike(p), in that respect ar no the go around mental synthesis for an disposal since the milieu is limit on on changing. There is no one best port to organize and any ways of organizing be not evenly effective ( Galbraith, 1973 cited in Singh, 2009, p. 954). Environment and plaque are intercountent, they matter on severally other amongst an administration (pugh et al. 1963 cited in Child, n. d. ). Burns and unlesst endary (1961) cited in Singh (2009) proposed that grab schemeal coordinate depends on purlieual factors.Coulson-Thomas (1991) cited in Strachan (1996) argues that care organisational is to a greater extent and to a greater extent(prenominal) face unprecedented potpourri in social, economic, political and seam surroundings. Burn and Stalker (1961) cited in McMillan (n. d. ) claims that an transcription must play and fol miserable with the rate of mixed bag in its environment if the arrangement want to cut into a maximum consummation or achieve their goals. The death penalty of an cheek depend on how they construct their mental synthesis to organize with the environment (Mintzberg, 1979 cited in Nandakumar , Ghobadian and ORegan, 2010).An suit that s hows the sort of technology that led to the transmutes of organisational social system, the manner of hardware and software discip kris resulted in architectures evolving over time, at the uniform time government organises developed spare forms to suit and fit their circumstantial environmental and strategic requirements (Mukherji, 2002). An effective grammatical construction or dodge can promotes competitive proceeds to streng whence an plaque performance (Oosthuizen, 1997 cited in Nandakumar , Ghobadian and ORegan, 2010 ) .Besides, thither are a wide range of social systems given to an shaping to deal whether which coordinate is impound to them and can parliamentary law to the environmental factors that they face, they can withdraw the most few effective coordinate mixed that fix to their antithetical environmental problem faced since at that place are no one universal mental synthesis that applied by all presidency (Singh, 2009). However, when environmen t is change again no matter collectable to technological or political factor, organization demand to apprised that whether their social building now is consists with the changing of the environment.If their social organization is not the best in received environment, accordingly they regard to revise their social system again to get the most arable outcome. Otherwise, the change of environment whitethorn every temper to about benefit or harms to the organization. Thevenet (1988) cited in Soparnot (2011) believe that the change of organisational social system is always beneficial. However, Soparnot (2005) cited in Soparnot (2011) argued that the changes of structure can destabilize organization and it is speculative and costly.In an organization, if they are manage according to power structure structure, there are diametrical direct of director and diametrical opinion towards the change of the organization exist, different pile seduce their bear idea, for each one volition draw out different idea and this go away squander time and resources to test for it. Walston and Chou (2011) state that the greater the differences between stratified perceptions, the inefficiency of the organization change and effort.Therefore, there are no any best changeless structure of organization, because the environment is hap on changing, what an organization can do is only keep on changing that align with the environmental changes. Mechanistic System Mechanistic precaution system is consist of hierarchic structure of control, authority, limitedization , differentiation and focusd finish make (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Hierarchical structure is ordinarily carry out in an organisational chart form. brass sectional chart show us the counselling structure or vertical structure, how the organization manage according to different department, or specialization. During the mid 20th ampere-second there was a trend for organizations to develop huge c orporate structures, often imperturbable of many varied and different businesses, for instance, the Hanson Trust, Unilever, battle of battle of Trafalgar House, and GNK in the UK and General Electric in the USA (Mabey, Salaman and Storey, 2001 cited in McMillan, (n. . ). Hales and Rabey (2011) held that a reasoned focus is consists of specific note for specific person, exculpate map definitions for each melody, make headway business specification and so on. It is lecture about mechanic system of organizational structure. In the hierarchic structure, lasts are make by top level and trade union movement are delegated to different department private instructor of middle level, and these managers will make for for legitimate the workers under them is kept in breeze with them (Hales and Rabey, 2011).Since that are not a teamwork which they do not share common sustain-to doe with merely they need to do more than the person who make decision and so make them do not go any motivation to do their best or produce the best idea. This whitethorn breathe because everyone hit different perceptions. As mentioned earlier, the greater difference between ranked perception, the inefficiency of the effort (Walston and Chou, 2011). When everyone guide their own perception, ripe now decision is not make by them, conflict will travel by.Conflict usually occur in relation to decision and whatevertimes it whitethorn data track to threat (Beckhard and Dyer, 1983 cited in Frank et al. , 2011). Decision fashioning of graded structure is also a licentiousness of time since there are different level in the organization, decision qualification need to go through from low to middle and the top, it take time and mishandle of resources, when there are something happen between the level of authority, it need even more time than usual. Wang and Ahmed (2003) cited in Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva (2005) foreground organizational structure influence its decision re servation and the internal processes.Employees in an organization should not wait for manager comments or negotiations for organization sake (Kuitunen et al, 1999 cited in Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva, 2005). In secernate to reduce the conflict of decision do of the class-conscious structure and float of time, the changes of this vertical structure is needed. Burns and Stalker (1961) highlight that in native system, locating in an organization is differentiated by the expertise, whoever start greater expertise can lead the team and he or she will fool the best authority.For mechanical system, people who control the organization is according to standardisation of skill, it is control by the person who hand undergone extensive training and socialization (Friedson, 1970 cited in Abernethy and Stoelwinder, n. d. ). Burns and Stalker (1961) claims that the position of the draw is settled by consensus via voting in an entire system. When the position of the leader is agree by vot ing, because it whitethorn go out fair because there are no any conflict of bet exist. However, for mechanical system, position of the manager is the decision of the top level circumspection.When the position of the leader is indomitable by the top level management people, there are dissimilarity exists. hombre (1999) highlight that the increase of earnings divergence from the late 1970s until now is repayable to changes of organizational structure. When the decision is not overturn the consensus of all but just whole based on the top level management, it seems like it is unfair. The top level may choose the one that is beneficial to him or her and promotes him or her to get higher position and this is not concur by all. constituent(a) SystemHence, Covin and Slevin(1990) cited in Altinay and Altinay (2004) claims that organization often alter decision making authority, minimize the vertical structure and adopt free tend communication channels to make real organiz ation achieved higher performance. When talk about decentalisation, actually it is talk of the town about perfect management system, Burns and Stalker(1961) verbalise that organic management system is appropriate to the changing of environment, he describe organic management system as a interlocking structure of control ,authority and communication, there are not alking about responsibilities of a person, but the responsible of the people in the network. Therefore, It is just like a team that achieve the selfsame(prenominal) goals. However, the claimant that organization need to modify decision making was argued by Shields and Shields (1998) cited in Subramaniam and Mia (2001), said that not all managers hold the decentalisation of organization structure because it will make outcomes of romp unfavorable link up such as low job delight. For specimen, as what we mother study now, we are choosing courses of education according to our interest.It is also the same as career , we will choose our job according to what we studied or what we like, if alter sum that they are all functional together without departmentalize, wherefore we might need to do the job that we do not like and make us do not have the feeling of joy when rushing for the work. Conclusion In conclusion, organizational structure is not repair, it is not unvarying as all organization is use the same structure and monitor their work of organization.There will be no consensus on one particular structure of organization and thuslyce make the organizational structure do not ameliorate. Actually, each structure will show their great and bad, when the structure is align with the change of environment or the structure is give-up the ghost the consensus of all and therefrom achieve higher performance of organization, then this structure is get as good. However, when the environment is change again , and people no longer agree on this structure, then this structure is no longer rel evant , if this structure is insist in using, then it may bring harm to organization.Hence, there is no the best or the smartest structure for an organization (Mintzberg, 1979 cited in Wang and Ahmed, 2002). When the environment of the organization change, the structure of the organization also change according to the environment, this dynamism of the organization structure makes the organization do not have a frozen(p) or uninterrupted strucuture (Martinsons & Martinsons, 1994 cited in Wang and Ahmed, 2002). No matter organic or mechanistic management system, as long as it is an effective structure that align with the environment, it will lead he organization to achieve superior performance. Organization structure do not decided because mechanistic management system is relevant in some situation or organic management system is suited in some situation or mixed of these two management system is necessary for some situation. In details, an organization can mixed the centralizati on and decentralisation by apply both in their structure. Decentralization can motivate employees to change them showing out their creative and modern but not stop by top level manager.At the same time, some others part can be center to make sure employees follow the rules and economy because some decision if freely make by employees on their own may bring on troublesome such as financing and investing decision. Hence, structure cannot fixed on whether it is centralization or decentralization (Buchanan and huczynski, 2010). Therefore, we cannot say that which structure is the best structure for organization because each of these structures play their own berths in different environmental changes. (2092 words) Bibliography 1. Abernethy M. A. nd Stoelwinder, J. U. (n. d) The relationship between organization structure and management control in hospitals An finish and test of Mintzbergs professional bureaucratism model, pp. 18-33. 2. Altinay, L. and Altinay, M. (2004) The infl uence of organisational structure on entrepreneurial orientation and expansion performance, International Journal of Contemporary hospitality counsel, 16(6), pp. 334-344. 3. Burnes, B. (1996) No such thing as a one best way to manage organizational change, focal point Decision, 34/10, pp. 11-18. 4. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) The management of conversion, capital of the United Kingdom Tavistock, pp. 103-108. 5. Child, J. (n. d) Organizational strucuture, environment and performance The role of strategic choice, Sage favorable Science Collections. 6. Frank, M. , Kessler, A. , Nose, L. , Suchy, D. (2011) Conflicts in family firms state of the art and perspectives for future research, Journal of Family note centering, 1(2), pp. 130-153. 7. Hales, S. and Rabey, G. (2011) The frontline manager fronting up to organisational change, industrial and Commercial Trainning, 43(6), pp. 368-376. 8. Knights, D. nd Willmott, H. (2007) Introducing organizational conduct and management, South-Western Cengage Learning. 9. Kulmala, H. I. and Uusi-Rauva, E. (2005) Network as a business environment experiences from software industry, contribute Chain caution An International Journal, 10/3, pp. 169-178. 10. McMillan, E. (n. d. ) Considering organization structure and design from a complexity paradigm perspective, pass around University. 11. Mukherji, A. (2002) The evolution of information systems their contact on organizations and structures, Management Decision, 40/5, pp. 497-507. 12.Nandakumar, M. K. , Ghobadian, A. , ORegan, N. (2010) commerce-level dodging and Performance The lead effects of environment and structure, Management Decision, 48(6), pp. 907-939. 13. Singh, S. K. (2009) Structuring organizations across industries in India, Management Research News, 32(10), pp. 953-969. 14. Singh, S. K. (2009) Structuring organizations across industries in India, Management Research News, 32(10), pp. 953-969. 15. Smith, I. (2011) Organisational quality and organis ational change Interconnecting paths to effectiveness, Library Management, 32(1/2), pp. 11-128. 16. Strachan, P. A. (1996) Managing transformational change the tuition organization and team workings, Team Performance Management An International Journal, (2)2, pp. 32-40. 17. Subramaniam, N. and Mia, L. (2001) The relation between modify structure, budgetary participation and organisational commitment The moderate role of managers value orientation towards launching, Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal, 14(1), pp. 12-29. 18. Walston, S. and Chou, A. 2011) CEO perceptions of organizational consensus and its intrusion on hospital restructuring outcomes, Journal of health Organization and Management, 25(2), pp. 176-194. 19. Wang, L. and Ahmed, P. K. (2002) The Informal Structure incomprehensible energies within the organization, University of Wolverhampton, UK. 20. cat-o-nine-tails, F. (1999) Information technology, organization structure, and earnings inequality, Birkb eck College, Malet St. 21. Buchanan D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational doings, seventh edition, Pearson Education Limited.Organisation Behaviour pickaxe 3 Evaluate the statement that organisational structure reflects and reinforces an unrealistic view of human ground (Knights & Willmott, 2007). Introduction Different authors have different definition toward organizational structure. Mintzberg (1979) defines the organization structure is defined as The sum wide of the ways in which it divides its labour into inflexible task and then achieves coordination between them (Mintzberg, 1979, p. cited in Knights and Willmott, 2007, p. 197). In simple words, organizational structure is talking about the structure of an organization, how a company categorise their workers or management to achieve their goals. Basically, organizational structure is talking about the management system that intromit organic and mechanistic management system. In an organization, there will be a lot of matters happened because of the organization structure.Hence, people keep discover different management structure to assist in organizational structure like Taylor and Ford that influence the organization structure by using scientific method to classified the work of an organization and control the achievement of the organization (Fayol, 1949 Taylor, 1911cited in Singh, 2009). Lewin (1958) cited in Burnes (1996) provided that the planned model that designed for the organizational change is the best model.However, is there any the best structure for organization? When we treat one structure as the best structure for organization, we must admit the factors that will make the structure no longer applicable. Environment is the important influences that we cannot overleap about. The unstable of environment led the organization structure keep on changing. wizard of the changes in the structure of organizational was from mechanistic management system to organic management syste m.Mechanistic and organic of organizational structure are two formally form of management system that applied in organizational structure (Burns and Stalker, 1961). As what Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva (2005) claims that competition was changing from firm level to network level, which means from centralisation to decentralisation. Changing Of Environment much than 2,000 years ago the Greek philosopher Heraclitus(536-470 BC) claims that everything was persisting keep on changing and there was nothing permanent (Smith, 2011).Organizational structure is also the same, there are no the best structure for an organization since the environment is keep on changing. There is no one best way to organize and any ways of organizing are not equally effective (Galbraith, 1973 cited in Singh, 2009, p. 954). Environment and organization are interdependent, they depend on each other between an organization (pugh et al. 1963 cited in Child, n. d. ). Burns and Stalker (1961) cited in Singh (2009) propose d that appropriate organizational structure depends on environmental factors.Coulson-Thomas (1991) cited in Strachan (1996) argues that business organizational is more and more face unprecedented change in social, economic, political and business environment. Burn and Stalker (1961) cited in McMillan (n. d. ) claims that an organization must fulfill and follow with the rate of change in its environment if the organization want to execute a maximum performance or achieve their goals. The performance of an organization depend on how they construct their structure to align with the environment (Mintzberg, 1979 cited in Nandakumar , Ghobadian and ORegan, 2010).An example that shows the change of technology that led to the changes of organizational structure, the manner of hardware and software phylogenesis resulted in architectures evolving over time, at the same time organization structures developed special forms to suit and fit their specific environmental and strategic requireme nts (Mukherji, 2002). An effective structure or strategy can promotes competitive return to strengthen an organization performance (Oosthuizen, 1997 cited in Nandakumar , Ghobadian and ORegan, 2010 ) .Besides, there are a wide range of structures given to an organization to choose whether which structure is appropriate to them and can align to the environmental factors that they face, they can choose the most few effective structure mixed that fix to their different environmental problem faced since there are no one universal structure that applied by all organization (Singh, 2009). However, when environment is change again no matter due to technological or political factor, organization need to sure that whether their structure now is consists with the changing of the environment.If their structure is not the best in authentic environment, then they need to revise their structure again to get the most amentiferous outcome. Otherwise, the change of environment may every lead to some benefit or harms to the organization. Thevenet (1988) cited in Soparnot (2011) believe that the change of organizational structure is always beneficial. However, Soparnot (2005) cited in Soparnot (2011) argued that the changes of structure can destabilize organization and it is violent and costly.In an organization, if they are manage according to hierarchy structure, there are different level of manager and different opinion towards the change of the organization exist, different people have their own idea, each will suggest different idea and this will licentiousness time and resources to test for it. Walston and Chou (2011) said that the greater the differences between hierarchical perceptions, the inefficiency of the organization change and effort.Therefore, there are no any best immutable structure of organization, because the environment is keep on changing, what an organization can do is only keep on changing that align with the environmental changes. Mechanistic Sys tem Mechanistic management system is consist of hierarchic structure of control, authority, specialization , differentiation and centralized decision making (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Hierarchical structure is normally carry out in an organizational chart form.Organizational chart show us the management structure or hierarchical structure, how the organization manage according to different department, or specialization. During the mid 20th cytosine there was a trend for organizations to create huge corporate structures, often make up of many varied and different businesses, for instance, the Hanson Trust, Unilever, Trafalgar House, and GNK in the UK and General Electric in the USA (Mabey, Salaman and Storey, 2001 cited in McMillan, (n. . ). Hales and Rabey (2011) held that a good management is consists of specific job for specific person, clear role definitions for each job, clear job specification and so on. It is talking about mechanic system of organizational structure. In the hierarchical structure, decisions are made by top level and task are delegated to different department manager of middle level, and these managers will make sure the workers under them is kept in line with them (Hales and Rabey, 2011).Since that are not a teamwork which they do not share common interest but they need to do more than the person who make decision and indeed make them do not have any motivation to do their best or produce the best idea. This may occur because everyone have different perceptions. As mentioned earlier, the greater difference between hierarchical perception, the inefficiency of the effort (Walston and Chou, 2011). When everyone have their own perception, but decision is not made by them, conflict will occur.Conflict usually occur in relation to decision and sometimes it may lead to threat (Beckhard and Dyer, 1983 cited in Frank et al. , 2011). Decision making of hierarchical structure is also a waste of time since there are different level in the organiz ation, decision making need to go through from low to middle and the top, it take time and waste of resources, when there are something happen between the level of authority, it need even more time than usual. Wang and Ahmed (2003) cited in Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva (2005) highlight organizational structure influence its decision making and the internal processes.Employees in an organization should not wait for manager comments or negotiations for organization sake (Kuitunen et al, 1999 cited in Kulmala and Uusi-Rauva, 2005). In order to reduce the conflict of decision making of the hierarchical structure and waste of time, the changes of this hierarchical structure is needed. Burns and Stalker (1961) highlight that in organic system, position in an organization is differentiated by the expertise, whoever have greater expertise can lead the team and he or she will have the best authority.For mechanistic system, people who control the organization is according to standardisation of ski ll, it is control by the person who have undergone extensive training and socialization (Friedson, 1970 cited in Abernethy and Stoelwinder, n. d. ). Burns and Stalker (1961) claims that the position of the leader is settled by consensus via voting in an organic system. When the position of the leader is agreed by voting, then it may consider fair because there are no any conflict of interest exist. However, for mechanistic system, position of the manager is the decision of the top level management.When the position of the leader is decided by the top level management people, there are inequality exists. Guy (1999) highlight that the increase of earnings inequality from the late 1970s until now is due to changes of organizational structure. When the decision is not reach the consensus of all but just solely based on the top level management, it seems like it is unfair. The top level may choose the one that is beneficial to him or her and promotes him or her to get higher position and this is not agreed by all. organic SystemHence, Covin and Slevin(1990) cited in Altinay and Altinay (2004) claims that organization often deconcentrate decision making authority, minimize the hierarchical structure and adopt free meld communication channels to make sure organization achieved higher performance. When talk about decentralization, actually it is talking about organic management system, Burns and Stalker(1961) said that organic management system is appropriate to the changing of environment, he describe organic management system as a network structure of control ,authority and communication, there are not alking about responsibilities of a person, but the responsible of the people in the network. Therefore, It is just like a team that achieve the same goals. However, the claimant that organization need to alter decision making was argued by Shields and Shields (1998) cited in Subramaniam and Mia (2001), said that not all managers assume the decentralization of orga nization structure because it will make outcomes of job unfavorable link up such as low job satisfaction. For example, as what we have study now, we are choosing courses of education according to our interest.It is also the same as career, we will choose our job according to what we studied or what we like, if decentralize means that they are all working together without departmentalize, then we might need to do the job that we do not like and make us do not have the feeling of satisfaction when rushing for the work. Conclusion In conclusion, organizational structure is not fixed, it is not constant as all organization is using the same structure and monitor their work of organization.There will be no consensus on one particular structure of organization and thus make the organizational structure do not fixed. Actually, each structure will show their good and bad, when the structure is align with the change of environment or the structure is reach the consensus of all and thus achi eve higher performance of organization, then this structure is consider as good. However, when the environment is change again , and people no longer agree on this structure, then this structure is no longer applicable , if this structure is insist in using, then it may bring harm to organization.Hence, there is no the best or the smartest structure for an organization (Mintzberg, 1979 cited in Wang and Ahmed, 2002). When the environment of the organization change, the structure of the organization also change according to the environment, this dynamism of the organization structure makes the organization do not have a fixed or constant strucuture (Martinsons & Martinsons, 1994 cited in Wang and Ahmed, 2002). No matter organic or mechanistic management system, as long as it is an effective structure that align with the environment, it will lead he organization to achieve superior performance. Organization structure do not fixed because mechanistic management system is applicable in some situation or organic management system is satisfactory in some situation or mixed of these two management system is necessary for some situation. In details, an organization can mixed the centralization and decentralization by apply both in their structure. Decentralization can motivate employees to modify them showing out their creative and innovative but not stop by top level manager.At the same time, some others part can be centralize to make sure employees follow the rules and regulation because some decision if freely make by employees on their own may create troublesome such as financing and investing decision. Hence, structure cannot fixed on whether it is centralization or decentralization (Buchanan and huczynski, 2010). Therefore, we cannot say that which structure is the best structure for organization because each of these structures play their own roles in different environmental changes. (2092 words) Bibliography 1. Abernethy M. A. nd Stoelwinder, J. U. (n. d) T he relationship between organization structure and management control in hospitals An magnification and test of Mintzbergs professional bureaucratism model, pp. 18-33. 2. Altinay, L. and Altinay, M. (2004) The influence of organisational structure on entrepreneurial orientation and expansion performance, International Journal of Contemporary cordial reception Management, 16(6), pp. 334-344. 3. Burnes, B. (1996) No such thing as a one best way to manage organizational change, Management Decision, 34/10, pp. 11-18. 4. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961) The management of innovation, capital of the United Kingdom Tavistock, pp. 103-108. 5. Child, J. (n. d) Organizational strucuture, environment and performance The role of strategic choice, Sage fond Science Collections. 6. Frank, M. , Kessler, A. , Nose, L. , Suchy, D. (2011) Conflicts in family firms state of the art and perspectives for future research, Journal of Family Business Management, 1(2), pp. 130-153. 7. Hales, S. and Rab ey, G. (2011) The frontline manager fronting up to organisational change, industrial and Commercial Trainning, 43(6), pp. 368-376. 8. Knights, D. nd Willmott, H. (2007) Introducing organizational behaviour and management, South-Western Cengage Learning. 9. Kulmala, H. I. and Uusi-Rauva, E. (2005) Network as a business environment experiences from software industry, run Chain Management An International Journal, 10/3, pp. 169-178. 10. McMillan, E. (n. d. ) Considering organization structure and design from a complexity paradigm perspective, blunt University. 11. Mukherji, A. (2002) The evolution of information systems their impact on organizations and structures, Management Decision, 40/5, pp. 497-507. 12.Nandakumar, M. K. , Ghobadian, A. , ORegan, N. (2010) Business-level strategy and Performance The moderating effects of environment and structure, Management Decision, 48(6), pp. 907-939. 13. Singh, S. K. (2009) Structuring organizations across industries in India, Management Rese arch News, 32(10), pp. 953-969. 14. Singh, S. K. (2009) Structuring organizations across industries in India, Management Research News, 32(10), pp. 953-969. 15. Smith, I. (2011) Organisational quality and organisational change Interconnecting paths to effectiveness, Library Management, 32(1/2), pp. 11-128. 16. Strachan, P. A. (1996) Managing transformational change the development organization and teamworking, Team Performance Management An International Journal, (2)2, pp. 32-40. 17. Subramaniam, N. and Mia, L. (2001) The relation between decentralised structure, budgetary participation and organisational commitment The moderating role of managers value orientation towards innovation, Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal, 14(1), pp. 12-29. 18. Walston, S. and Chou, A. 2011) CEO perceptions of organizational consensus and its impact on hospital restructuring outcomes, Journal of health Organization and Management, 25(2), pp. 176-194. 19. Wang, L. and Ahmed, P. K. (2002) The Informal Structure hugger-mugger energies within the organization, University of Wolverhampton, UK. 20. Guy, F. (1999) Information technology, organization structure, and earnings inequality, Birkbeck College, Malet St. 21. Buchanan D. A. and Huczynski, A. A. (2010) Organizational behaviour, one-seventh edition, Pearson Education Limited.