Organizational Structures and Corporate Cultures

Organizational Designs and Structures

• Identify different types of organizational structures and their strengths and weaknesses.

A 2017 Deloitte source asked, before answering, "Why has organizational design zoomed to the top of the list as the most important trend in the Global Human Capital Trends survey for two years in a row?"

The source continued, "The answer is simple: The way high-performing organizations operate today is radically different from how they operated 10 years ago. Yet many other organizations continue to operate according to industrial-age models that are 100 years old or more".

Mechanistic and Organic Organizations

Early organizational theorists broadly categorized organizational structures and systems as either mechanistic or organic.

This broad, generalized characterization of organizations remains relevant. Mechanistic organizational structures are best suited for environments that range from stable and simple to low-moderate uncertainty and are characterized by top-down hierarchies of control that are rule-based. The chain of command is highly centralized and uses formal authority; tasks are clearly defined and differentiated to be executed by specific specialized experts. Bosses and supervisors have fewer people working directly under them (i.e., a narrow span of control), and the organization is governed by rigid departmentalization (i.e., an organization is divided into different departments that perform specialized tasks according to the departments' expertise). This form of organization represents a traditional type of structure that evolved in environments that were, as noted above, stable with low complexity. Historically, the U.S. Postal Service and other manufacturing types of industries were mechanistic. Again, this type of organizational design may still be relevant, in simple, stable, low-uncertainty environments.

Organic organizational structures and systems, however, have opposite characteristics from mechanistic ones. These organizational forms work best in unstable, complex, changing environments. Their structures are flatter, with participatory communication and decision-making flowing in different directions. There is more fluidity and less-rigid ways of performing tasks; there may also be fewer rules. Tasks are more generalized and shared; there is a wider span of control (i.e., more people reporting to managers). Examples of organically structured industries, such as high tech, computer, aerospace, and telecommunications industries, that must deal with change and uncertainty. Contemporary corporations and firms engaged in fast-paced, highly competitive, rapidly changing, and turbulent environments are becoming more organic in different ways, as we will discuss in this chapter. However, not every organization or every part of most organizations may require an organic type of structure. Understanding different organizational designs and structures is important to discern when, where, and under what circumstances a type of mechanistic system or part of an organization would be needed. The following section discusses five types of structures with variations.

Source: OpenStax, https://opentextbc.ca/organizationalbehavioropenstax/chapter/organizational-designs-and-structures/
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Types of Organizational Structures

Within the context of mechanistic versus organic structures, specific types of organizational structures in the United States historically evolved over at least three eras, as we discuss here before explaining types of organizational designs. During the first era, the mid-1800s to the late 1970s, organizations were mechanistic self-contained, top-down pyramids.

Emphasis was placed on internal organizational processes of taking in raw materials, transforming those into products, and turning them out to customers.

Early organizational structures were focused on internal hierarchical control and separate functional specializations in order to adapt to external environments. Structures during this era grouped people into functions or departments, specified reporting relationships among those people and departments, and developed systems to coordinate and integrate work horizontally and vertically. As will be explained, the functional structure evolved first, followed by the divisional structure and then the matrix structured.

The second era started in the 1980s and extended through the mid-1990s. More-complex environments, markets, and technologies strained mechanistic organizational structures. Competition from Japan in the auto industry and complex transactions in the banking, insurance, and other industries that emphasized customer value, demand and faster interactions, quality, and results issued the need for more organic organizational designs and structures.

Communication and coordination between and among internal organizational units and external customers, suppliers, and other stakeholders required higher levels of integration and speed of informational processing. Personal computers and networks had also entered the scene. In effect, the so-called "horizontal organization" was born, which emphasized "reengineering along workflow processes that link organizational capabilities to customers and suppliers".

Ford, Xerox Corp., Lexmark, and Eastman Kodak Company are examples of early adopters of the horizontal organizational design, which, unlike the top-down pyramid structures in the first era, brought flattened hierarchical, hybrid structures and cross-functional teams.

The third era started in the mid-1990s and extends to the present. Several factors contributed to the rise of this era: the Internet; global competition - particularly from China and India with low-cost labor; automation of supply chains; and outsourcing of expertise to speed up production and delivery of products and services. The so-called silos and walls of organizations opened up; everything could not be or did not have to be produced within the confines of an organization, especially if corporations were cutting costs and outsourcing different functions of products to save costs. During this period, further extensions of the horizontal and organic types of structures evolved: the divisional, matrix, global geographic, modular, team-based, and virtual structures were created.

In the following discussion, we identify major types of structures mentioned above and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each. Note that in many larger national and international corporations, there is a mix and match among different structures used. There are also advantages and disadvantages of each structure. Again, organizational structures are designed to fit with external environments. Depending on the type of environments from our earlier discussion in which a company operates, the structure should facilitate that organization's capability to achieve its vision, mission, and goals.

Evolution of Organizational Structure

Note the continuum, showing the earliest form of organizational structure, functional, evolving with more complex environments to divisional, matrix, team-based, and then virtual. This evolution, as discussed above, is presented as a continuum from mechanistic to organic structures - moving from more simple, stable environments to complex, changing ones. The six types of organizational structures discussed here include functional, divisional, geographic, matrix, networked/team, and virtual.

Functional Structure

The functional structure is among the earliest and most used organizational designs. This structure is organized by departments and expertise areas, such as R&D (research & development), production, accounting, and human resources. Functional organizations are referred to as pyramid structures since they are governed as a hierarchical, top-down control system.

Small companies, start-ups, and organizations working in simple, stable environments use this structure, as do many large government organizations and divisions of large companies for certain tasks.

The functional structure excels in providing for a high degree of specialization and a simple and straightforward reporting system within departments, offers economies of scale, and is not difficult to scale if and when the organization grows. Disadvantages of this structure include isolation of departments from each other since they tend to form "silos," which are characterized by closed mindsets that are not open to communicating across departments, lack of quick decision-making and coordination of tasks across departments, and competition for power and resources.

Divisional Organization Structure

Divisional structures are, in effect, many functional departments grouped under a division head. Each functional group in a division has its own marketing, sales, accounting, manufacturing, and production team. This structure resembles a product structure that also has profit centers. These smaller functional areas or departments can also be grouped by different markets, geographies, products, services, or other whatever is required by the company's business. The market-based structure is ideal for an organization that has products or services that are unique to specific market segments and is particularly effective if that organization has advanced knowledge of those segments.

The advantages of a divisional structure include the following: each specialty area can be more focused on the business segment and budget that it manages; everyone can more easily know their responsibilities and accountability expectations; customer contact and service can be quicker; and coordination within a divisional grouping is easier, since all the functions are accessible. The divisional structure is also helpful for large companies since decentralized decision-making means that headquarters does not have to micromanage all the divisions. The disadvantages of this structure from a headquarters perspective are that divisions can easily become isolated and insular from one another and that different systems, such as accounting, finance, sales, and so on, may suffer from poor and infrequent communication and coordination of enterprise mission, direction, and values. Moreover, incompatibility of systems (technology, accounting, advertising, budgets) can occur, which creates a strain on company strategic goals and objectives.

Geographic Structure

A geographic structure is another option aimed at moving from a mechanistic to more organic design to serve customers faster and with relevant products and services; as such, this structure is organized by locations of customers that a company serves. This structure evolved as companies became more national, international, and global. Geographic structures resemble and are extensions of the divisional structure.

Organizing geographically enables each geographic organizational unit (like a division) the ability to understand, research, and design products and/or services with the knowledge of customer needs, tastes, and cultural differences. The advantages and disadvantages of the geographic structure are similar to those of the divisional structure. Headquarters must ensure effective coordination and control over each somewhat autonomous geographically self-contained structure.

The main downside of a geographical organizational structure is that it can be easy for decision-making to become decentralized, as geographic divisions (which can be hundreds if not thousands of miles away from corporate headquarters) often have a great deal of autonomy.

IBM China

IBM has chosen a geographic structure which is aimed at moving from a mechanistic to more organic design to serve customers faster and with relevant products and services; as such, this structure is organized by locations of customers that a company serves. This structure evolved as companies became more national, international, and global. Geographic structures resemble and are extensions of the divisional structure.

Matrix Structure

Matrix structures move closer to organic systems in an attempt to respond to environmental uncertainty, complexity, and instability. The matrix structure actually originated at a time in the 1960s when U.S. aerospace firms contracted with the government. Aerospace firms were required to "develop charts showing the structure of the project management team that would be executing the contract and how this team was related to the overall management structure of the organization". As such, employees would be required to have dual reporting relationships - with the government and the aerospace company.

Since that time, this structure has been imitated and used by other industries and companies since it provides flexibility and helps integrate decision-making in functionally organized companies.

Matrix designs use teams to combine vertical with horizontal structures. The traditional functional or vertical structure and chain of command maintains control over employees who work on teams that cut across functional areas, creating horizontal coordination that focuses projects that have deadlines and goals to meet within and often times in addition to those of departments. In effect, matrix structures initiated horizontal team-based structures that provided faster information sharing, coordination, and integration between the formal organization and profit-oriented projects and programs.

This structure has lines of formal authority along two dimensions: employees report to a functional, departmental boss and simultaneously to a product or project team boss. One of the weaknesses of matrix structures is the confusion and conflicts employees experience in reporting to two bosses. To work effectively, employees (including their bosses and project leaders) who work in dual-authority matrix structures require good interpersonal communication, conflict management, and political skills to manage up and down the organization.

Different types of matrix structures, some resembling virtual team designs, are used in more complex environments.

For example, there are cross-functional matrix teams in which team members from other organizational departments report to an "activity leader" who is not their formal supervisor or boss. There are also functional matrix teams where employees from the same department coordinate across another internal matrix team consisting of, for example, HR or other functional area specialists, who come together to develop a limited but focused common short-term goal. There are also global matrix teams consisting of employees from different regions, countries, time zones, and cultures who are assembled to achieve a short-term project goal of a particular customer. Matrix team members have been and are a growing part of horizontal organizations that cut across geographies, time zones, skills, and traditional authority structures to solve customer and even enterprise organizational needs and demands.

As part of the next discussed organizational type of structure, networked teams, organizational members in matrix structures must "learn how to collaborate with colleagues across distance, cultures and other barriers. Matrix team members often suffer from the problem of divided loyalties where they have both team and functional goals that compete for their time and attention, they have multiple bosses and often work on multiple teams at the same time. For some matrix team members this may be the first time they have been given accountability for results that are broader than delivery of their functional goals. Some individuals relish the breath and development that the matrix team offers and others feel exposed and out of control". To succeed in these types of horizontal organizational structures, organizational members "should focus less on the structure and more on behaviors".

Networked Team Structure

Networked team structures are another form of the horizontal organization. Moving beyond the matrix structure, networked teams are more informal and flexible. "[N]etworks have two salient characteristics: clustering and path length. Clustering refers to the degree to which a network is made up of tightly knit groups while path lengths is a measure of distance - the average number of links separating any two nodes in the network".

For our purposes here, a networked organizational structure is one that naturally forms after being initially assigned. Based on the vision, mission, and needs of a problem or opportunity, team members will find others who can help - if the larger organization and leaders do not prevent or obstruct that process.

There is not one classical depiction of this structure, since different companies initially design teams to solve problems, find opportunities, and discover resources to do so. Stated another way, "The networked organization is one that is connected together by informal networks and the demands of the task, rather than a formal organizational structure. The network organization prioritizes its 'soft structure' of relationships, networks, teams, groups and communities rather than reporting lines".

A Deloitte source based on the 2017 Global Human Capital Trend study stated that as organizations continue to transition from vertical structures to more organic ones, networked global designs are being adapted to larger companies that require more reach and scope and quicker response time with customers: "Research shows that we spend two orders of magnitude more time with people near our desk than with those more than 50 meters away. Whatever a hierarchical organization chart says, real, day-to-day work gets done in networks. This is why the organization of the future is a 'network of teams'".

Advantages of networked organizations are similar to those stated earlier with regard to organic, horizontal, and matrix structures. Weaknesses of the networked structure include the following: (1) Establishing clear lines of communication to produce project assignments and due dates to employees is needed. (2) Dependence on technology - Internet connections and phone lines in particular - is necessary. Delays in communication result from computer crashes, network traffic errors and problems; electronic information sharing across country borders can also be difficult. (3) Not having a central physical location where all employees work, or can assemble occasionally to have face-to-face meetings and check results, can result in errors, strained relationships, and lack of on-time project deliverables.

Virtual Structure

Virtual structures and organizations emerged in the 1990s as a response to requiring more flexibility, solution-based tasks on demand, fewer geographical constraints, and accessibility to dispersed expertise.

Virtual structures. Related to so-called modular and digital organizations, virtual structures are dependent on information communication technologies (ICTs).

These organizations move beyond network team structures in that the headquarters or home base may be the only part of or one part of a stable organizational base. Otherwise, this is a "boundaryless organization". Examples of organizations that use virtual teams are Uber, Airbnb, Amazon, Reebok, Nike, Puma, and Dell. Increasingly, organizations are using different variations of virtual structures with call centers and other outsourced tasks, positions, and even projects.

Using Technological Disruption

Information technologies and social media powered by the internet and used by sharing economy companies such as Airbnb and Uber have democratized and increased, if not leveled, competition across several industries such taxis, real estate rentals, and hospitality services.

Advantages of virtual teams and organizations include cost savings, decreased response time to customers, greater access to a diverse labor force not encumbered by 8-hour workdays, and less harmful effects on the environment. "The telecommuting policies of Dell, Aetna, and Xerox cumulatively saved 95,294 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions last year, which is the equivalent of taking 20,000 passenger vehicles off of the road".

Disadvantages are social isolation of employees who work virtually, potential for lack of trust among employees and between the company and employees when communication is limited, and reduced collaboration among separated employees and the organization's officers due to lack of social interaction.

In the following section, we turn to internal organizational dimensions that complement structure and are affected by and affect external environments.

1. Why does the matrix structure have a dual chain of command?
2. How does a matrix structure increase power struggles or reduce accountability?
3. What are advantages of a formal committee structure? Disadvantages?
4. Identify different types of organizational structures, and their strengths and weaknesses

Summary

An understanding of Mechanistic vs Organic Structures and Systems and how they differ and how these major concepts help classify different organizational structures is crucial to recognizing organizational structures. Finally, the issue of organizational complexity and its impact on organizational structure needs to be understood.

You should be able to discuss the evolution of different types of Organizational Structures. You should understand and identify the six types of organizational structures, and the advantages and disadvantages of each: Functional, Divisional, Matrix, Geographic, Networked Team, and Virtual.

Glossary

Organizational structures

A broad term that covers both mechanistic and organic organizational structures.

Mechanistic organizational structures

Best suited for environments that range from stable and simple to low-moderate uncertainty and have a formal “pyramid’ structure.

Horizontal organizational structures

A “flatter” organizational structure often found in matrix organizations where individuals relish the breath and development that their team offers.

Organic organizational structures

The opposite of a functional organizational form that works best in unstable, complex changing environments.

Functional structure

The earliest and most used organizational designs.

Divisional structure

An organizational structure characterized by functional departments grouped under a division head.

Matrix structure

An organizational structure close in approach to organic systems that attempt to respond to environmental uncertainty, complexity, and instability.

Geographic structure

An Organizational option aimed at moving from a mechanistic to more organic design to serve customers faster and with relevant products and services; as such, this structure is organized by locations of customers that a company serves.

Networked-team structure

A form of the horizontal organization.

Virtual structure

A recent organizational structure that has emerged in the 1990’s and early 2000’s as a response to requiring more flexibility, solution based tasks on demand, less geographical constraints, and accessibility to dispersed expertise.

The Internal Organization and External Environments

• Explain how organizations organize to meet external market threats and opportunities.
  

At a basic level of understanding how internal organizations respond to environments, consider the theory of Open Systems, which the organizational theorists Katz and Kahn and Bertalanffy introduced.

The theory's view of organizations as open systems that take in resources and raw materials at the "input" phase from the environment in a number of forms, depending on the nature of the organization, industry, and its business. Whatever the input resources are - information, raw materials, students entering a university - to be transformed by the internal processes of the organization. The internal organizational systems then process and transform the input material, which is called "through-put" phase, and move the changed material (resources) to the "outputs" and back into the environment as products, services, graduates, etc.

Internal Organization

Internal organizational dimensions and systems include leadership, strategy, culture, management, goals, marketing, operations, and structure. Relationships, norms, and politics are also included in the informal organization. There are other internal functions not listed here, such as research and development, accounting and finance, production, and human resources. Another popular depiction of internal organizational dimensions is the McKinsey 7-S model. Similarly, strategy, structure, systems, skills, staff, and style all revolve around and are interconnected with shared values (or culture) in an organization.

The McKinsey 7-S Model

A unifying framework, developed by Arie Lewin and Carroll Stephens, illustrates the integration of internal organizational dimensions and how these work in practice to align with the external environment. Note that it is the CEO and other top-level leaders who scan the external environment to identify uncertainties and resources before using a SWOT analysis (identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) to confirm and update the domain of an organization and then to define the vision, mission, goals, and strategies. Once the enterprise goals and strategies are developed, the organizational culture, structure, and other systems and policies can be established (human resources, technologies, accounting and finance, and so on).

The Internal Organization and External Environment

After a CEO and the top-level team identify opportunities and threats in the environment, they then determine the domain and purpose of the organization from which strategies, organizational capabilities, resources, and management systems must be mobilized to support the enterprise's purpose.

The company McDonald's has, for example, successfully aligned its enterprise with the global environments it serves, which is "1% of the world's population - more than 70 million customers - every day and in virtually every country across the world". The major operating goal of the firm driving its internal alignment is a "fanatical attention to the design and management of scalable processes, routines, and a working culture by which simple, stand-alone, and standardized products are sold globally at a predictable, and therefore manageable, volume, quality, and cost".

McDonald's Processes

McDonalds, major operating goal of the firm driving its internal alignment is a "Fanatical attention to the design and management of scalable processes, routines, and a working culture by which simple, stand-alone, and standardized products are sold globally at a predictable, and therefore manageable, volume, quality, and cost". Here employees are reminded of the time that the ingredients should stay on a secondary shelf.

In practice, no internal organizational alignment with its external environment is perfect or permanent. Quite the opposite. Companies and organizations change leadership and strategies and make structural and systems changes to meet changing competition, market forces, and customers and end users' needs and demands. Even Amazon continues to develop, expand, and change. With a mission statement as bold and broad as Amazon's, change is a constant: "Our vision is to be earth's most customer-centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online".

Amazon has a functional organizational structure that focuses on business functions for determining the interactions among the different parts of the company. Amazon's corporate structure is best characterized as global function-based groups (most significant feature), a global hierarchy, and geographic divisions. This structure seems to fit with the size of Amazon's business - 43% of 2016 retail sales were in the United States.

Seven segments, including information technology, human resources and legal operations, and heads of segments, report to Amazon's CEO. "Senior management team include two CEOs, three Senior Vice Presidents and one Worldwide Controller, who are responsible for various vital aspects of the business reporting directly to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos".

The strategic goal underlying this structure is to facilitate Amazon.com to successfully implement e-commerce operations management throughout the entire organization.

Amazon's Corporate Structure

Despite the company's exponential growth and success to date, as noted earlier in the section on organizational structures, a disadvantage of structures such as Amazon's, and in this case Amazon's, is that it has limited flexibility and responsiveness even with its current growth. "The dominance of the global function-based groups and global hierarchy characteristics reduces the capacity of Amazon to rapidly respond to new issues and problems encountered in the e-commerce business".

Still, Amazon's most outstanding success factor remains its CEO, Jeff Bezos - his ingenuity, vision and foresight, and ability to sustain and even extend the company's competitive advantages. Amazon customers value these factors - customer purchase criteria (CPC) that include price, fast delivery, and reliable service. "Consumers choose Amazon because it does better than its competition on these CPC".

1. Identify the six major organizational structures.
2. Explain the McKinsey 7-S model.
3. Explain how organizations organize to meet external market threats and opportunities
   

You should understand and identify the six types of organizational structures, and the advantages and disadvantages of each structure:

You should also understand why the internal dimensions of an organization matter with regard to how it fits with its external environment.

Glossary

Domain

The purpose of the organization from which its strategies, organizational capabilities, resources, and management systems are mobilized to support the enterprise's purpose.

McKinsey 7-S model

A popular depiction of internal organizational dimensions.

Corporate Cultures

• Identify the fit between organizational cultures and the external environment

Organizational culture is considered one of the most important internal dimensions of an organization's effectiveness criteria. Peter Drucker, an influential management guru, once stated, "Culture eats strategy for breakfast".

He meant that corporate culture is more influential than strategy in terms of motivating employees' beliefs, behaviors, relationships, and ways they work since culture is based on values. Strategy and other internal dimensions of organization are also very important, but organizational culture serves two crucial purposes: first, culture helps an organization adapt to and integrate with its external environment by adopting the right values to respond to external threats and opportunities; and secondly, culture creates internal unity by bringing members together so they work more cohesively to achieve common goals.

Culture is both the personality and glue that binds an organization. It is also important to note that organizational cultures are generally framed and influenced by the top-level leader or founder. This individual's vision, values, and mission set the "tone at the top," which influences both the ethics and legal foundations, modeling how other officers and employees work and behave. A framework used to study how an organization and its culture fit with the environment is offered in the Competing Values Framework.

The Competing Values Framework (CVF) is one of the most cited and tested models for diagnosing an organization's cultural effectiveness and examining its fit with its environment. The CVF, has been tested for over 30 years; the effectiveness criteria offered in the framework were discovered to have made a difference in identifying organizational cultures that fit with particular characteristics of external environments.

The Competing Values Framework

The two axes in the framework, external focus versus internal focus, indicate whether or not the organization's culture is externally or internally oriented. The other two axes, flexibility versus stability and control, determine whether a culture functions better in a stable, controlled environment or a flexible, fast-paced environment. Combining the axes offers four cultural types:

(1) the dynamic, entrepreneurial Adhocracy Culture - an external focus with a flexibility orientation; (2) the people-oriented, friendly Clan Culture - an internal focus with a flexibility orientation; (3) the process-oriented, structured Hierarchy Culture - an internal focus with a stability/control orientation; and (4) the results-oriented, competitive Market Culture - an external focus with a stability/control orientation.

The orientation of each of these cultural types is summarized as follows. The Adhocracy Culture profile of an organization emphasizes creating, innovating, visioning the future, managing change, risk-taking, rule-breaking, experimentation, entrepreneurship, and uncertainty. This profile culture is often found in such fast-paced industries as filming, consulting, space flight, and software development. Facebook and Google's cultures also match these characteristics.

It should be noted, however, that larger organizations may have different cultures for different groupings of professionals, even though the larger culture is still dominant. For example, a different subculture may evolve for hourly workers as compared to PhD research scientists in an organization.

The Clan Culture type focuses on relationships, team building, commitment, empowering human development, engagement, mentoring, and coaching. Organizations that focus on human development, human resources, team building, and mentoring would fit this profile. This type of culture fits Tom's of Maine, which has strived to form respectful relationships with employees, customers, suppliers, and the physical environment.

The Hierarchy Culture emphasizes efficiency, process and cost control, organizational improvement, technical expertise, precision, problem solving, elimination of errors, logical, cautious and conservative, management and operational analysis, and careful decision-making. This profile would suit a company that is bureaucratic and structured, such as the U.S. Postal Service, the military, and other similar types of government agencies.

The Market Culture focuses on delivering value, competing, delivering shareholder value, goal achievement, driving and delivering results, speedy decisions, hard driving through barriers, directive, commanding, and getting things done. This profile suits a marketing-and-sales-oriented company that works on planning and forecasting but also getting products and services to market and sold. Oracle under the dominating, hard-charging executive chairman Larry Ellison characterized this cultural fit.

Amazon illustrates a company that can have a mix of cultures and be effective. For example, Amazon blends a high-performance Adhocracy Culture with regard to its external expansion and Bezos's leadership style; at the same time, Amazon resembles a Hierarchy Culture internally with regard to its tight control over employees at lower levels. The company propelled its domain from an "online bookstore" "to selling everything online to being the pioneering in adopting cloud computing with AWS . . . to adopting the latest robotics in its warehouses to improve productivity . . . to thinking and testing disruptive technologies like drones and so on".

It has been criticized, at the same time, for its "toxic cut-throat work environment," asserting that Jeff Bezos is overly demanding and sets very high standards for Amazon employees, as well as for himself. This type of culture extends down to the warehouse employees. Amazon employees have complained that "Work came first, life came second, and trying to find the balance came last". This criticism peaked with an alleged suicide attempt in 2017 of a disgruntled employee who requested a transfer to a different department within in the company but was placed on an employee improvement plan - "a step that could result in his termination from Amazon if his performance didn't improve".

Amazon has since changed many of its working rules and regulations for warehouse employees.

1. How can employee diversity give a company a competitive advantage?
2. Explain the concept of hiring for fit as it relates to corporate culture.
3. What are some organizational issues that must be addressed when two large firms merge or grow rapidly like Amazon?
4. Identify the fit between organizational cultures and the external environment
   

You should be able to identify and differentiate between the four types of organizational cultures and the fit of each with the external environment and describe the CVF framework. Finally, you can identify the internal dimensions of organizations, the interconnection among the dimensions, and how these affect the 'fit' with external environments.

Glossary

Corporate culture

Defines how motivating employees' beliefs, behaviors, relationships, and ways they work creates a culture that is based on the values the organization believes in.

Adhocracy culture

Creates an environment of innovating, visioning the future, accepting of managing change, and risk taking, rule-breaking, experimentation, entrepreneurship, and uncertainty.

Market culture

Focuses on delivering value, competing, delivering shareholder value, goal achievement, driving and delivering results, speedy decisions, hard driving through barriers, directive, commanding, competing and getting things done.

Hierarchy culture

Emphasizes efficiency, process and cost control, organizational improvement, technical expertise, precision, problem solving, elimination of errors, logical, cautious and conservative, management and operational analysis, careful decision making.

Clan culture

Focuses on relationships, team building, commitment, empowering human development, engagement, mentoring, and coaching.

Internal dimensions of organizations

How an organization's culture affects and influences its strategy.

Competing Values Framework

Developed by Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn this model is used for diagnosing an organization's cultural effectiveness and examining its fit with its environment.