Type of Organizational Structure Adopted in Organizing and Delivering of the 2012 Olympic Games - Case Study Example

2012 Olympics Games xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Instructor xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date A) Introduction Across the globe, Olympic Games is considered to be a major global event which usually features both winter and summer sports whereby thousand of athletes participate in various set competitions. For the Olympic Games to be effective and be carried out in a more organized manner there is need to develop an organizational structure. Here, an organizational structure is defined as that structure which largely determines both the reporting and hierarchical structure within the Olympic Games organization. According to Craig and Jim (2005), in a more simplified manner an organizational structure is that particular plan that clearly shows the systematic arrangement of work within a given organization. This paper focuses on identify the type of organizational structure adopted in organizing and delivering of the 2012 Olympic games. In addition it will also analyze the main benefits associated with the chosen structure as well as suggest the various problems in which the organizers might experience as a result of the chosen structure being in place (Craig and Jim 2005). 2012 London Olympic Background From the event organizers, the London 2012 Olympic Games are been delivered through a structure that is largely designed to ensure that both the legacy and games are successful. For an effective organizational structure there are several bodies involved in the establishment of a successful structure. These bodies includes; government Olympic executive which largely oversees the 2012 project on behalf of the government. This body ensures that the event is delivered on time and within the set budget. Craig and Jim(2005) maintain that, the London organizing committee of Olympic and Paralympics games is responsible for staging the 2012 London games as well as reporting to international Olympic and Paralympics committee. The Olympic delivery authority is more responsible for building infrastructure and permanent venue needed for the game. The mayor of London is responsible for ensuring that there is smooth running of the games and people benefit more on it. The other bodies are Olympic park Legacy Company, London development agency, British Olympic association and the Olympic board which work closely with the British government in ensuring that there is a successful delivery of the games as well as its legacy (Craig and Jim 2005). Organizational structure adopted for the 2012 Olympic Games For the 2012 London Olympic Games, the best organizational structure is the matrix since the Olympic Games can be categorized as multinational companies since it incorporates people across the globe. The matrix structure widely groups’ employees by both product and function structure. It is quite evidence that this structure can work best through combining the best of both separate structures. Further, this structure blends well with Olympic Games since this event frequently uses various bodies in accomplishing the design goals and objectives. The structure is considered to be amongst one of the purest of various organizational structures whereby a given simple lattice emulates the order displayed as well as the regularity demonstrated in a given nature. It is evident that the London 2012 Olympics are complex therefore the use of a matrix structure will ensure that the event is run effectively because of its idea of combining both product and function structures (Jacobides 2007). According to Jacobides (2007), a matrix structure is important also in this event in that it provides for various levels both vertically as well as horizontally. In the designing of the London 2012 Olympic Games, employees may be part of a given functional group (that is production) but in the same time might serve on a particular team which largely supports new product development. This kind of organizational structure may considerably have members of various different groups working together to ensure the Olympics are of success as well as its legacy is maintained. It is important to note the three types of matrix that are likely to be observed in the London Olympic Games. These types are; weak/functional, balanced/functional as well as strong/project matrix. For the weak/functional matrix is whereby a project manager who has a considerably limited authority is assigned to widely oversee cross functional aspect of the games. The designed functional managers retrieved from different bodies largely maintain control over their project area as well as resources (Jacobides 2007). Balanced/functional matrix is where a project manager is assigned with the mandate of overseeing the project. It also involves sharing of power between the functional and project manager. The use of this matrix structures ensures that the best aspects of project and functional organization. Finally, strong/ project matrix is whereby a design project manager of the London 2012 Olympic Games is responsible for the whole event where the functional manager provide technical expertise through assigning the relevant resources needed (Jacobides 2007). Benefits and problems of using the matrix structure The matrix structure has several benefits to an organization. One of the benefits is that the structure is flexible and speedy. In addition it is can result to efficient use of resources as compared to other structures. This occurs as very highly specialized employees and departmental equipment may be shared by the departments in the organization. For instance, a computer programmer may move in different departments when needed arises. The matrix structures may be described to be more responsive and flatter than other structures that may be applied in the organization. This is because it allows efficient and effective exchange of information. The people working within the organization will be able to share data that will assist them in achieving a common set goal. This will result to increase in cooperation and problem solving will increase (Clements & Gido 2008). Other benefits include more skillful managers and improved motivation for the employees. Improved motivation is seen as a result of decision-making within teams becoming participatory and democratic as every member brings focused knowledge. In addition, since every employee has direct impact on the everyday decisions, they are highly likely to experience commitment and motivation to the objectives and goals of the department that they belong, strategic management will also improve, accountability is also seen with the department and the finally delivery to the customers will be excellent. Training will also assist in maintaining excellent communication skills and the ability to work in different teams. This will helps in eliminate any negative influence as a result of dual authority and will also ensure that the teams are comfortable in their area of specialization. Another potential benefit is that an organization will be able to adapt to different environmental changes that will ensure that an organization obtains its set goals. In addition, it will improve an organization chances to explore different regions where the utmost objective is met. Of great concern are the problems that are associated with the matrix structure. These problems may not be overlooked as they may be experienced in an organization. One of the problems is that the matrix structure is costly to maintain. This may be partly be caused by the complex requirements as seen in reporting. Another problem rises as a result of dual authority which may be experienced by the both the functioning manager and either the divisional or product manager and of course the employee. For instance, the roles and responsibilities of these managers if not clearly laid down may bring up the issue of power struggles. In case of the employees, it may not be easy to decide the person to be seen as in charge. This may result to unwanted conflict and confusion in the organization (Schermerhorn 2011). Different teams may form concrete loyalties that result of focus on the goals and objectives of the larger organization. Despite these problems, however, various measures may be laid down to ensure that an organization is able to deal with them. For instance, an organization may down roles and responsibilities of the dual authority to clear any power struggle. B) There are four major organizational cultures that have been identified and outlined in the Harrison and handy model: power culture, task culture, role culture and person culture. Use of these basic arms of the model assists in defining the working structure within the organization by enabling workers to understand how they should execute their responsibilities. The power culture is mostly found within small organizations and is one whereby leadership is centralized and each individual within the organization is solely responsible for his/her actions. On the other hand, role cultures are represented by organizations having specialized and bureaucratic systems rather than individual responsibilities. Task cultures are found in organizations where the company demonstrates team power and results of the company are measured by experts. In the final type, that is person culture, the organization is basically established with no particular management structure as its main goal is to benefit all individuals within it equally hence management is based on mutual consent (Bush 2003). In a project consisting of a mixture of varying organizational cultures, there are many problems that are bound to arise as a result of such a structure. This can be well analyzed using the Handy’s model of organizational culture as discussed below. Power culture As earlier mentioned, the power culture is one in which power remains entirely in the hands of those in authority. Decision making is solely the responsibility of the top management and does not involve other workers in the organization. In a project involving many organizations and cultures, there are many problems that might emerge of the power culture is applied. To begin with, it is quite clear that only those in higher authority benefit from special workplace privileges since decisions are kept in their hands only. Employees are not fully aware of their responsibilities which create a platform for the management to unnecessarily delegate duties. In addition, workers are work under pressure since they are under strict rules formulated from the top which in turn might generate inefficiencies within the organization. This kind of leadership is also characterized by partiality where some employees are favored and might ultimately lead to unrest among the other workers (Bush 2003). Task culture Under this culture, teams within the organization are created with the aim of meeting set targets or to solve problems that are critical to the organization. Individuals who share interests are group together to form teams that execute certain tasks. Such interests include special talents and specializations in education. A project that adopts this kind of culture is bound to reap a lot of benefits although there are several drawbacks that come along with it. Formation of such teams requires that all members contribute equally which does not always apply. Some team members may take advantage of the weak team members. Additionally, conflicts of interests and viewpoints might be a major drawback of using teams. Although they share interests, team members might differ in the way they view certain issues and this might ultimately derail the decision making process. Individuals also tend to develop significant loyalty to the teams in the process overlook the overall organizational goals (LeBraron 2003). Person culture Individuals in this kind of culture regard themselves more important than the organization itself. Self interest takes precedence over organizational interests. Indeed, personal interests are quite common in a project involving many organizations and cultures. Employees in such a case, do their work for the sake of making money and not for the success of the organization. The decisions made are for personal benefits and not in favor of the entire company. Employees are disrespectful and disloyal to their employers hence the organization suffers major drawbacks in terms of financial losses as well as other losses. Role culture In this culture, each employee is assigned a responsibility based on his educational qualification, specialization or interest in order to obtain maximum results from him. The employee is fully responsible and accountable for all his/her actions and he uses the best strategy for the specific duty with minimal supervision. The problem with this kind of culture is that some employees might take advantage of the freedom to benefit themselves at the expense of the organization. Since the individual is not directly accountable to a higher authority it becomes difficult to point out loopholes within the organization as ownership of tasks is individualized. Conflicts of power take center stage in such a culture as individuals will always strive to do their best in order to secure top positions (LeBraron 2003). References Bush, T., 2003, Theories of educational leadership and management. London: Paul Chapman. Clements, J, and Gido, J, 2008, Successful Project management, Mason: Cengage Learning Craig, R and Jim, P., 2005, The Olympic Games Explained: A Student Guide to the Evolution of the Modern Olympic Games London: Routledge Jacobides, M., 2007, The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, 18, 3, 455-477 LeBraron, M., 2003, Culture and Conflict. Retrieved on 3rd January 2012 from http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/culture-conflict. Schermerhorn, J, 2011, Exploring Management, New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc Read More