The paper "Analysis of Airstar Organization Design and Structure" is an outstanding example of a management case study. This report aims to analyze organizational structure and design at Airstar. It identifies current design problems at Airstar and identifies the structure being used by the firm. The report also discusses the reasons why the current structure is not effective. Finally, the report provides a recommendation on the appropriate structure for the firm and the reasons why the proposed structure will suit Airstar. Key organizational design problems within the case Organization design refers to the way roles, structures and processes of a firm are created to realize the goals of the firm (Hill and Jones, 2009).
Good organizational design has a clear outline of authority and responsibility, can flexibly adjust to the dynamic business environment, has effective communication channels, encourages cooperation and trust, and ensures cost efficiency. An effective organization design takes into consideration the leadership, decision making and structure, the people, the work processes and systems, and culture (Baligh, 2006). A firm with effective organization design has a leadership team, which is cohesive, and one that has clear priorities and vision (Kogut, Urso, and Walker, 2007).
The decision-making and structure of effective organization design are characterized by clear accountabilities and roles for decision-making (Triplett, 2007). Moreover, they have an organizational structure that is in line with the firm’ s objectives. People within firms with effective organizational design have the necessary talents for ensuring the success of the firm. In addition, such firms have performance incentives and measures that are aligned to the firms to objectives. The work systems and processes of a firm with the effective organizational design are characterized by efficient and effectiveness and have work processes that are executed in a superior manner.
Firms with effective organization design also have a culture that accommodates change and one that is characterized by high-performance behaviours and values. Airstar seems to have problems of design in terms of leadership, decision making and structure, the people, the work processes and systems, and culture. Airstar lack leadership cohesion as witnessed by conflicts between the vice president of marketing and the controller over merger and acquisition. This is also illustrated by the fact that there are many cases of duplication of work where corporate offices have been trying to outmanoeuvre each other (Baligh, 2006).
Moreover, the lack of cohesion is illustrated by the fact that communications at the firm are ineffective as asserted by Morgan who says that, “ communications are atrocious. ” The decision-making and structure of Airstar are also ineffective since the firm seems to lack clear accountabilities and roles for decision-making. From what Morgan says employees at the firm seem to be working up their own job descriptions. Moreover, it is not clear how decisions are made at the firm as illustrated by Robinson question that “ How did we ever decide who should handle mergers or acquisitions” and the answer from Morgan that “ I guess it just occurred over time that the vice president of marketing should have the responsibility. ” The design of Airstar also has problems in terms of performance measures and incentives as since Morgan asserts that his basis of evaluating and appraising corporate executive and goal accomplishment was becoming obsolete.
Since the responsibility and authority of different employees at the firm are not well spelt out and written down, there is a duplication of work and hence the processes at the firm are ineffective and inefficient.
There are also problems with the culture of Airstar (Baligh, 2006). It seems to change management at the firm is ineffective since changes and decisions at the firm are said to be made on the basis of expediency. It is imperative that from the analysis above, Airstar has design problems in almost all elements of organization design that determine the effectiveness of the organizational design.
Baligh, H. 2006. Organization Structures: Theory and Design, Analysis and Prescription. New York: Birkhäuser
Braha, D. and Bar-Yam, Y. 2007. The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development: Empirical and Analytical Results. Management Science, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 1127–1145.
Daft, R. 2007. Organization Theory and Design, 9th Ed. Sydney: Cengage Learning
Galbraith, J., Downey, D., and Kates, A. 2002. Designing Dynamic Organizations: A Hands-On Guide for Leaders at All Levels. London: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn
Hill, C., and Jones, G. (2009). Strategic Management Theory: An Integrated Approach, 9th Ed. London: Cengage Learning
Jacobides., M. G. 2007. The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 455-477.
Kogut, B., Urso, P., and Walker, G. 2007. Emergent Properties of a New Financial Market: American Venture Capital Syndication, 1960–2005. Management Science, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 1181-1198.
Mahesh, K., and Suresh, J. 2009. Knowledge criteria for organization design. Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 41 – 51
Sun, J., and Zhang, P. 2011. Owner organization design for mega industrial construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 828-833
Triplett, J. 2007. Organizational Design: A Holistic View. London: Lulu.com