The paper "C & C Grocery’ s Organisational Structure" is a good example of a management case study. Organisations across the world operate based on principles championed by the founders of the organisation. Some organisations have maintained the principles while other organisations evolve. Both types of organisations face different challenges and the organisation that would be successful is the one that introduces new measures to counter these problems. The aim of this paper is to analyse and discuss the C & C Grocery store. The paper analyses the organisation structure of C & C Grocery, analysing information available from stakeholders and formulating recommendations that can drive the organisation to become more successful.
Organizational Structure at C & C Grocery Stores The organisational structure can be defined as a group of activities such as coordination, task allocation, supervision that are aimed towards achieving organisational goals and objectives (Langer, Alfirevic, and Pavicic, 2005). It may also be viewed as the means in which individuals views and organisation and the environment of the organisation. The structure of an organisation can be formal, informal or a structure that is made of both formal and informal (Zheng, Yang and McLean, 2010).
Formal structures are usually formed to meet the requiremen6ts of the organisation and usually come in the form of organisational charts (Armbruster et al. , 2008). This is depicted in the case study that illustrates how activities are accomplished within C & C Grocery. The C & C Grocery structure has a leader who is the founder of the organisation, and this leader directs and dictates the direction in which the grocery follows (Oldham and Hackman, 2010).
Formal structures are also important in ensuring disciplines and efficiency is cultivated in an organisation. Apart from the formal structure, organisations sometimes utilise informal structures in creating an environment that is conducive to the employees (Sengupta and Bhattacharya, 2006). For example, C & C Grocery originally was based on informal approach towards the customers; an aspect referred to as “ serve the customer” , and was adopted by Doug. Doug originally had a personality that encouraged serving customers effectively, an aspect which contributed to the increase of stores from a single on in 1947, and 20 years later the organisation had more than 200 stores.
However, because of the increase of stores and formality requirement, the model of “ serve the customer” changed because of environmental, economic and social factors. C & C Grocery has numerous branches that should operate effectively and efficiently requiring a structure that is applicable to the organisation. Analysing the C & C Grocery can be viewed from the angle of contingency effective approach in determining which parts or sections of an organisation a manager considers being important. The current structure employed by C & C Grocery employs is the internal process approach (Sengupta and Bhattacharya, 2006).
The philosophy utilised by internal process approach is that of assessing the effectiveness and looking at internal activities of an organisation to determine internal efficiency and health. In the case study, this is illustrated by responsibilities and roles that are played by each employee (Zheng, Yang and McLean, 2010). For example, all the people were concerned with the internal aspects of the organisation but did not consider the environmental factors. C & C Grocery were focused on operational details and ensuring each employee fulfils the roles and responsibility dictated.
This close supervision on operations was never done well since they measured the wrong internal processes and hence the result was ineffective in determining the health of the organisation. Rather C & C Grocery should have focused on the interaction between organisational parts, decentralisation of decision making, communication, teamwork and positive working climate
Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., and Lay, G. 2008. Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 644-657
Dugdale, D., and Lyne, S. 2010. Budgeting Practice and Organisational Structure. London: Elsevier
Ivanov, D., Sokolov, B., and Kaeschel, J. 2010. A multi-structural framework for adaptive supply chain planning and operations control with structure dynamics considerations. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 200, no. 2, pp. 409-420
Langer, J., Alfirevic, N., and Pavicic, J. 2005. Organizational change in transition societies. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Oldham, G., and Hackman, J. 2010. Not what it was and not what it will be: The future of job design research. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, vol. 31, no. 2-3, pp. 463-479
Sengupta, N., and Bhattacharya, M. 2006. Managing Change in Organisations. London: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Sorensen, L., and Stanton, N. 2013. Y is best: How Distributed Situational Awareness is mediated by organisational structure and correlated with task success. Safety Science, vol. 56, pp. 72-79
Watson, G., and Gallagher, J. 2005. Managing for Results, 2nd Ed. London: CIPD Publishing
Zheng, W., Yang, B., and McLean, G. 2010. Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, col. 63, no. 7, pp. 763-771