March 26th, 2022 
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 273
Chapter 9
Executing Strategy through Organizational Design
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
After reading this chapter, you should be able to understand and articulate answers to the following
questions:
1. What are the basic building blocks of organizational structure?
2. What types of structures exist, and what are advantages and disadvantages of each?
3. What is control and why is it important?
4. What are the different forms of control and when should they be used?
5. What are the key legal forms of business, and what implications does the choice of a business form have
for organizational structure?
Can Oil Well Services Fuel Success for GE?
Chapter 9 from Mastering Strategic Management was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license without attribution as requested
by the work’s original creator or licensee. © 2014, The Saylor Foundation.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 274
General Electric’s logo has changed little since its creation in the 1890s, but the company has grown to become the
sixth largest in the United States.
Image courtesy of The General Electric Company,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Early_General_Electric_logo_1899.png.
In February 2011, General Electric (GE) reached an agreement to acquire the well-support division of
John Wood Group PLC for $2.8 billion. This was GE’s third acquisition of a company that provides
services to oil wells in only five months. In October 2010, GE added the deepwater exploration capabilities
of Wellstream Holdings PLC for $1.3 billion. In December 2010, part and equipment maker Dresser was
acquired for $3 billion. By spending more than $7 billion on these acquisitions, GE executives made it
clear that they had big plans within the oil well services business.
While many executives would struggle to integrate three new companies into their firms, experts expected
GE’s leaders to smoothly execute the transitions. In describing the acquisition of John Wood Group PLC,
for example, one Wall Street analyst noted, “This is a nice bolt-on deal for GE.”[1] In other words, this
analyst believed that John Wood Group PLC could be seamlessly added to GE’s corporate empire. The
way that GE was organized fueled this belief.
GE’s organizational structure includes six divisions, each devoted to specific product categories: (1)
Energy (the most profitable division), (2) Capital (the largest division), (3) Home & Business Solutions,
(4) Healthcare, (5) Aviation, and (6) Transportation. Within the Energy division, there are three
subdivisions: (1) Oil & Gas, (2) Power & Water, and (3) Energy Services. Rather than having the entire
organization involved with integrating John Wood Group PLC, Wellstream Holdings PLC, and Dresser
into GE, these three newly acquired companies would simply be added to the Oil & Gas subdivisions
within the Energy division.
In addition to the six product divisions, GE also had a division devoted to Global Growth & Operations.
This division was responsible for all sales of GE products and services outside the United States. The
Global Growth & Operations division was very important to GE’s future. Indeed, GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt
expected that countries other than the United States will account for 60 percent of GE’s sales in the
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 275
future, up from 53 percent in 2010. To maximize GE’s ability to respond to local needs, the Global Growth
& Operations was further divided into twelve geographic regions: China, India, Southeast Asia,
Latin/South America, Russia, Canada, Australia, the Middle East, Africa, Germany, Europe, and Japan. [2]
Finally, like many large companies, GE also provided some centralized services to support all its units.
These support areas included public relations, business development, legal, global research, human
resources, and finance. By having entire units of the organization devoted to these functional areas, GE
hoped not only to minimize expenses but also to create consistency across divisions.
Growing concerns about the environmental effects of drilling, for example, made it likely that GE’s oil well
services operations would need the help of GE’s public relations and legal departments in the future.
Other important questions about GE’s acquisitions remained open as well. In particular, would the
organizational cultures of John Wood Group PLC, Wellstream Holdings PLC, and Dresser mesh with the
culture of GE? Most acquisitions in the business world fail to deliver the results that executives expect,
and the incompatibility of organizational cultures is one reason why.
GE fits a dizzying array of businesses into a relatively simple organizational chart.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 276
Adapted from company document posted at
http://www.ge.com/pdf/company/ge_organization_chart.pdf
The word executing used in this chapter’s title has two distinct meanings. These meanings were cleverly
intertwined in a quip by John McKay. McKay had the misfortune to be the head coach of a hapless
professional football team. In one game, McKay’s offensive unit played particularly poorly. When McKay
was asked after the game what he thought of his offensive unit’s execution, he wryly responded, “I am in
favor of it.”
In the context of business, execution refers to how well a firm such as GE implements the strategies that
executives create for it. This involves the creation and operation of both an appropriate organizational
structure and an appropriate organizational control processes. Executives who skillfully orchestrate
structure and control are likely to lead their firms to greater levels of success. In contrast, those executives
who fail to do so are likely to be viewed by stakeholders such as employees and owners in much the same
way Coach McKay viewed his offense: as worthy of execution.
[1] Layne, R. 2011, February 14. GE agrees to buy $2.8 billion oil-service unit; shares surge. Bloomsberg
Businessweek. Retrieved fromhttp://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-14/ge-agrees-to-buy-2-8-billion-oil-
service-unit-shares-surge.html
[2] GE names vice chairman John Rice to lead GE Global Growth & Operations [Press release]. 2010, November 8.
GE website. Retrieved from http://www.genewscenter.com/ Press-Releases/GE-Names-Vice-Chairman-John-Rice-
to-Lead-GE-Global-Growth-Operations-2c8a.aspx
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 277
9.1 The Basic Building Blocks of Organizational Structure
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Understand what division of labor is and why it is beneficial.
2. Distinguish between vertical and horizontal linkages and know what functions each fulfills in an
organizational structure.
Division of Labor
General Electric (GE) offers a dizzying array of products and services, including lightbulbs, jet engines,
and loans. One way that GE could produce its lightbulbs would be to have individual employees work on
one lightbulb at a time from start to finish. This would be very inefficient, however, so GE and most other
organizations avoid this approach. Instead, organizations rely ondivision of labor when creating their
products. Division of labor is a process of splitting up a task (such as the creation of lightbulbs)
into a series of smaller tasks, each of which is performed by a specialist.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 279
The leaders at the top of organizations have long known that division of labor can improve efficiency.
Thousands of years ago, for example, Moses’s creation of a hierarchy of authority by delegating
responsibility to other judges offered perhaps the earliest known example.
In the eighteenth century, Adam Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations quantified the
tremendous advantages that division of labor offered for a pin factory. If a worker performed all the
various steps involved in making pins himself, he could make about twenty pins per day. By breaking the
process into multiple steps, however, ten workers could make forty-eight thousand pins a day. In other
words, the pin factory was a staggering 240 times more productive than it would have been without
relying on division of labor. In the early twentieth century, Smith’s ideas strongly influenced Henry Ford
and other industrial pioneers who sought to create efficient organizations.
Division of labor allowed eighteenth-century pin factories to dramatically increase their efficiency.
While division of labor fuels efficiency, it also creates a challenge—figuring out how to coordinate
different tasks and the people who perform them. The solution is organizational structure, which is
defined as how tasks are assigned and grouped together with formal reporting relationships. Creating a
structure that effectively coordinates a firm’s activities increases the firm’s likelihood of success.
Meanwhile, a structure that does not match well with a firm’s needs undermines the firm’s chances of
prosperity.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 280
Division of labor was central to Henry Ford’s development of assembly lines in his automobile
factory. Ford noted, “Nothing is particularly hard if you divide it into small jobs.”
Image courtesy of the Ford Company, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A-line1913.jpg.
Vertical and Horizontal Linkages
Most organizations use a diagram called an organizational chart to depict their structure. These
organizational charts show how firms’ structures are built using two basic building blocks: vertical
linkages and horizontal linkages.Vertical linkages tie supervisors and subordinates together. These
linkages show the lines of responsibility through which a supervisor delegates authority to subordinates,
oversees their activities, evaluates their performance, and guides them toward improvement when
necessary. Every supervisor except for the person at the very top of the organization chart also serves as a
subordinate to someone else. In the typical business school, for example, a department chair supervises a
set of professors. The department chair in turn is a subordinate of the dean.
Most executives rely on the unity of command principle when mapping out the vertical linkages in an
organizational structure. This principle states that each person should only report directly to one
supervisor. If employees have multiple bosses, they may receive conflicting guidance about how to do
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 281
their jobs. The unity of command principle helps organizations to avoid such confusion. In the case of
General Electric, for example, the head of the Energy division reports only to the chief executive officer. If
problems were to arise with executing the strategic move discussed in this chapter’s opening vignette—
joining the John Wood Group PLC with GE’s Energy division—the head of the Energy division reports
would look to the chief executive officer for guidance.
Horizontal linkages are relationships between equals in an organization. Often these linkages are called
committees, task forces, or teams. Horizontal linkages are important when close coordination is needed
across different segments of an organization. For example, most business schools revise their
undergraduate curriculum every five or so years to ensure that students are receiving an education that
matches the needs of current business conditions. Typically, a committee consisting of at least one
professor from every academic area (such as management, marketing, accounting, and finance) will be
appointed to perform this task. This approach helps ensure that all aspects of business are represented
appropriately in the new curriculum.
Organic grocery store chain Whole Foods Market is a company that relies heavily on horizontal linkages.
As noted on their website, “At Whole Foods Market we recognize the importance of smaller tribal
groupings to maximize familiarity and trust. We organize our stores and company into a variety of
interlocking teams. Most teams have between 6 and 100 Team Members and the larger teams are divided
further into a variety of sub-teams. The leaders of each team are also members of the Store Leadership
Team and the Store Team Leaders are members of the Regional Leadership Team. This interlocking team
structure continues all the way upwards to the Executive Team at the highest level of the
company.” [1] This emphasis on teams is intended to develop trust throughout the organization, as well as
to make full use of the talents and creativity possessed by every employee.
Informal Linkages
Informal linkages refer to unofficial relationships such as personal friendships, rivalries, and politics. In
the long-running comedy series The Simpsons, Homer Simpson is a low-level—and very low-performing—
employee at a nuclear power plant. In one episode, Homer gains power and influence with the plant’s
owner, Montgomery Burns, which far exceeds Homer’s meager position in the organization chart, because
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 282
Mr. Burns desperately wants to be a member of the bowling team that Homer captains. Homer tries to use
his newfound influence for his own personal gain and naturally the organization as a whole suffers.
Informal linkages such as this one do not appear in organizational charts, but they nevertheless can have
(and often do have) a significant influence on how firms operate.
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
The concept of division of labor (dividing organizational activities into smaller tasks) lies at the heart of
the study of organizational structure. Understanding vertical, horizontal, and informal linkages helps
managers to organize better the different individuals and job functions within a firm.
E X E R C I S E S
1. How is division of labor used when training college or university football teams? Do you think you could
use a different division of labor and achieve more efficiency?
2. What are some formal and informal linkages that you have encountered at your college or university?
What informal linkages have you observed in the workplace?
[1] John Mackey’s blog. 2010, March 9. Creating the high trust organization [Web blog post]. Retrieved fromhttp://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/2010/03/09/creating-the-high-trust-organization/
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 283
9.2 Creating an Organizational Structure
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Know and be able to differentiate among the four types of organizational structure.
2. Understand why a change in structure may be needed.
Within most firms, executives rely on vertical and horizontal linkages to create a structure that they
hope will match the needs of their firm’s strategy. Four types of structures are available to executives:
(1) simple, (2) functional, (3) multidivisional, and (4) matrix. Like snowflakes, however, no two
organizational structures are exactly alike. When creating a structure for their firm, executives will
take one of these types and adapt it to fit the firm’s unique circumstances. As they do this,
executives must realize that the choice of structure will influence their firm’s strategy in the future.
Once a structure is created, it constrains future strategic moves. If a firm’s structure is designed to
maximize efficiency, for example, the firm may lack the flexibility needed to react quickly
to exploit new opportunities.
Simple Structure
Many organizations start out with a simple structure. In this type of structure, an organizational chart is
usually not needed. Simple structures do not rely on formal systems of division of labor.
If the firm is a sole proprietorship, one person performs all the tasks the organization
needs to accomplish. For example, on the TV series The Simpsons, both bar owner Moe Szyslak and the
Comic Book Guy are shown handling all aspects of their respective businesses.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 284
There is a good reason most sole proprietors do not bother creating formal organizational charts.
If the firm consists of more than one person, tasks tend to be distributed among them in an informal
manner rather than each person developing a narrow area of specialization. In a family-run restaurant or
bed and breakfast, for example, each person must contribute as needed to tasks, such as cleaning
restrooms, food preparation, and serving guests (hopefully not in that order). Meanwhile, strategic
decision making in a simple structure tends to be highly centralized. Indeed, often the owner of the firm
makes all the important decisions. Because there is little emphasis on hierarchy within a simple structure,
organizations that use this type of structure tend to have very few rules and regulations. The process of
evaluating and rewarding employees’ performance also tends to be informal.
The informality of simple structures creates both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, the
flexibility offered by simple structures encourages employees’ creativity and individualism. Informality
has potential negative aspects, too. Important tasks may be ignored if no one person is specifically
assigned accountability for them. A lack of clear guidance from the top of the organization can create
confusion for employees, undermine their motivation, and make them dissatisfied with their jobs. Thus
when relying on a simple structure, the owner of a firm must be sure to communicate often and openly
with employees.
Functional Structure
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 285
As a small organization grows, the person in charge of it often finds that a simple structure is no longer
adequate to meet the organization’s needs. Organizations become more complex as they grow, and this
can require more formal division of labor and a strong emphasis on hierarchy and vertical links. In many
cases, these firms evolve from using a simple structure to relying on a functional structure.
Within a functional structure, employees are divided into departments that each handle activities related
to a functional area of the business, such as marketing, production, human resources, information
technology, and customer service. Each of these five areas would be headed up by a manager
who coordinates all activities related to her functional area. Everyone in a company that works on marketing
the company’s products, for example, would report to the manager of the marketing department. The marketing
managers and the managers in charge of the other four areas in turn would report to the chief executive officer.
An example of a functional structure
Reproduced with permission
Using a functional structure creates advantages and disadvantages. An important benefit of adopting a
functional structure is that each person tends to learn a great deal about his or her particular function. By
being placed in a department that consists entirely of marketing professionals, an individual has a great
opportunity to become an expert in marketing. Thus a functional structure tends to create highly skilled
specialists. Second, grouping everyone that serves a particular function into one department tends to keep
costs low and to create efficiency. Also, because all the people in a particular department share the same
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 286
background training, they tend to get along with one another. In other words, conflicts within
departments are relatively rare.
Using a functional structure also has a significant downside: executing strategic changes can be very slow
when compared with other structures. Suppose, for example, that a textbook publisher decides to
introduce a new form of textbook that includes “scratch and sniff” photos that let students smell various
products in addition to reading about them. If the publisher relies on a simple structure, the leader of the
firm can simply assign someone to shepherd this unique new product through all aspects of the
publication process.
If the publisher is organized using a functional structure, however, every department in the organization
will have to be intimately involved in the creation of the new textbooks. Because the new product lies
outside each department’s routines, it may become lost in the proverbial shuffle. And unfortunately for
the books’ authors, the publication process will be halted whenever a functional area does not live up to its
responsibilities in a timely manner. More generally, because functional structures are slow to execute
change, they tend to work best for organizations that offer narrow and stable product lines.
The specific functional departments that appear in an organizational chart vary across organizations that
use functional structures. In the example offered earlier in this section, a firm was divided into five
functional areas: (1) marketing, (2) production, (3) human resources, (4) information technology, and (5)
customer service. In the TV show The Office, a different approach to a functional structure is used at the
Scranton, Pennsylvania, branch of Dunder Mifflin. As of 2009, the branch was divided into six functional
areas: (1) sales, (2) warehouse, (3) quality control, (4) customer service, (5) human resources, and (6)
accounting. A functional structure was a good fit for the branch at the time because its product line was
limited to just selling office paper.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 287
Multidivisional Structure
Many organizations offer a wide variety of products and services. Some of these organizations sell their
offerings across an array of geographic regions. These approaches require firms to be very responsive to
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 288
customers’ needs. Yet, as noted, functional structures tend to be fairly slow to change. As a result, many
firms abandon the use of a functional structure as their offerings expand. Often the new choice is
a multidivisional structure. In this type of structure, employees are divided into departments based on
product areas and/or geographic regions.
General Electric (GE) is an example of a company organized this way. As shown in the organization chart
that accompanies this chapter’s opening vignette, most of the company’s employees belong to one of six
product divisions (Energy, Capital, Home & Business Solutions, Health Care, Aviation, and
Transportation) or to a division that is devoted to all GE’s operations outside the United States (Global
Growth & Operations).
A big advantage of a multidivisional structure is that it allows a firm to act quickly. When GE makes a
strategic move such as acquiring the well-support division of John Wood Group PLC, only the relevant
division (in this case, Energy) needs to be involved in integrating the new unit into GE’s hierarchy. In
contrast, if GE was organized using a functional structure, the transition would be much slower because
all the divisions in the company would need to be involved. A multidivisional structure also helps an
organization to better serve customers’ needs. In the summer of 2011, for example, GE’s Capital division
started to make real-estate loans after exiting that market during the financial crisis of the late
2000s. [1] Because one division of GE handles all the firm’s loans, the wisdom and skill needed to decide
when to reenter real-estate lending was easily accessible.
Of course, empowering divisions to act quickly can backfire if people in those divisions take actions that
do not fit with the company’s overall strategy. McDonald’s experienced this kind of situation in 2002. In
particular, the French division of McDonald’s ran a surprising advertisement in a magazine called Femme
Actuelle. The ad included a quote from a nutritionist that asserted children should not eat at a McDonald’s
more than once per week. Executives at McDonald’s headquarters in suburban Chicago were concerned
about the message sent to their customers, of course, and they made it clear that they strongly disagreed
with the nutritionist.
Another downside of multidivisional structures is that they tend to be more costly to operate than
functional structures. While a functional structure offers the opportunity to gain efficiency by having just
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 289
one department handle all activities in an area, such as marketing, a firm using a multidivisional structure
needs to have marketing units within each of its divisions. In GE’s case, for example, each of its seven
divisions must develop marketing skills. Absorbing the extra expenses that are created reduces a firm’s
profit margin.
GE’s organizational chart highlights a way that firms can reduce some of these expenses: the
centralization of some functional services. As shown in the organizational chart, departments devoted to
important aspects of public relations, business development, legal, global research, human resources, and
finance are maintained centrally to provide services to the six product divisions and the geographic
division. By consolidating some human resource activities in one location, for example, GE creates
efficiency and saves money.
An additional benefit of such moves is that consistency is created across divisions. In 2011, for example,
the Coca-Cola Company created an Office of Sustainability to coordinate sustainability initiatives across
the entire company. Bea Perez was named Coca-Cola’s chief sustainability officer and was put in charge of
the Office of Sustainability. At the time, Coca-Cola’s chief executive officer Muhtar Kent noted that Coca-
Cola had “made significant progress with our sustainability initiatives, but our current approach needs
focus and better integration.” [2] In other words, a department devoted to creating consistency across
Coca-Cola’s sustainability efforts was needed for Coca-Cola to meet its sustainability goals.
Matrix Structure
Within functional and multidivisional structures, vertical linkages between bosses and subordinates are
the most elements. Matrix structures, in contrast, rely heavily on horizontal relationships. [3] In particular,
these structures create cross-functional teams that each work on a different project. This offers several
benefits: maximizing the organization’s flexibility, enhancing communication across functional lines, and
creating a spirit of teamwork and collaboration. A matrix structure can also help develop new managers.
In particular, a person without managerial experience can be put in charge of a relatively small project as
a test to see whether the person has a talent for leading others.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 290
Using a matrix structure can create difficulties too. One concern is that using a matrix structure violates
the unity of command principle because each employee is assigned multiple bosses. Specifically, any given
individual reports to a functional area supervisor as well as one or more project supervisors. This creates
confusion for employees because they are left unsure about who should be giving them direction.
Violating the unity of command principle also creates opportunities for unsavory employees to avoid
responsibility by claiming to each supervisor that a different supervisor is currently depending on their
efforts.
The potential for conflicts arising between project managers within a matrix structure is another concern.
Chances are that you have had some classes with professors who are excellent speakers while you have
been forced to suffer through a semester of incomprehensible lectures in other classes. This mix of
experiences reflects a fundamental reality of management: in any organization, some workers are more
talented and motivated than others. Within a matrix structure, each project manager naturally will want
the best people in the company assigned to her project because their boss evaluates these managers based
on how well their projects perform. Because the best people are a scarce resource, infighting and politics
can easily flare up around which people are assigned to each project.
Given these problems, not every organization is a good candidate to use a matrix structure. Organizations
such as engineering and consulting firms that need to maximize their flexibility to service projects of
limited duration can benefit from the use of a matrix. Matrix structures are also used to organize research
and development departments within many large corporations. In each of these settings, the benefits of
organizing around teams are so great that they often outweigh the risks of doing so.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 291
Strategy at the Movies
Office Space
How much work can a man accomplish with eight bosses breathing down his neck? For Peter Gibbons, an
employee at information technology firm Initech in the 1999 movie Office Space, the answer was zero.
Initech’s use of a matrix structure meant that each employee had multiple bosses, each representing a
different aspect of Initech’s business. High-tech firms often use matrix to gain the flexibility needed to
manage multiple projects simultaneously. Successfully using a matrix structure requires excellent
communication among various managers—however, excellence that Initech could not reach. When
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 292
Gibbons forgot to put the appropriate cover sheet on his TPS report, each of his eight bosses—and a
parade of his coworkers—admonished him. This fiasco and others led to Gibbons to become cynical about
his job.
Simpler organizational structures can be equally frustrating. Joanna, a waitress at nearby restaurant
Chotchkie’s, had only one manager—a stark contrast to Gibbons’s eight bosses. Unfortunately, Joanna’s
manager had an unhealthy obsession with the “flair” (colorful buttons and pins) used by employees to
enliven their uniforms. A series of mixed messages about the restaurant’s policy on flair led Joanna to
emphatically proclaim—both verbally and nonverbally—her disdain for the manager. She then quit her job
and stormed out of the restaurant.
Office Space illustrates the importance of organizational design decisions to an organization’s culture and
to employees’ motivation levels. A matrix structure can facilitate resource sharing and collaboration but
may also create complicated working relationships and impose excessive stress on employees. Chotchkie’s
organizational structure involved simpler working relationships, but these relationships were strained
beyond the breaking point by a manager’s eccentricities. In a more general sense, Office Spaceshows that
all organizational structures involve a series of trade-offs that must be carefully managed.
Boundaryless Organizations
Most organizational charts show clear divisions and boundaries between different units. The value of a
much different approach was highlighted by former GE CEO Jack Welch when he created the term
boundaryless organization. A boundaryless organization is one that removes the usual barriers between
parts of the organization as well as barriers between the organization and others. [4] Eliminating all
internal and external barriers is not possible, of course, but making progress toward being boundaryless
can help an organization become more flexible and responsive. One example is W.L. Gore, a maker of
fabrics, medical implants, industrial sealants, filtration systems, and consumer products. This firm avoids
organizational charts, management layers, and supervisors despite having approximately nine thousand
employees across thirty countries. Rather than granting formal titles to certain people, leaders with W.L.
Gore emerge based on performance and they attract followers to their ideas over time. As one employee
noted, “We vote with our feet. If you call a meeting, and people show up, you’re a leader.” [5]
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 293
The boundaryless approach to structure embraced by W.L. Gore drives the kind of creative
thinking that led to their most famous product, GORE-TEX.
Image courtesy of adifansnet, http://www.flickr.com/photos/adifans/3706215019.
An illustration of how removing barriers can be valuable has its roots in a very unfortunate event. During
2005’s Hurricane Katrina, rescue efforts were hampered by a lack of coordination between responders
from the National Guard (who are controlled by state governments) and from active-duty military units
(who are controlled by federal authorities). According to one National Guard officer, “It was just like a
solid wall was between the two entities.” [6]Efforts were needlessly duplicated in some geographic areas
while attention to other areas was delayed or inadequate. For example, poor coordination caused the
evacuation of thousands of people from the New Orleans Superdome to be delayed by a full day. The
results were immense human suffering and numerous fatalities.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 294
In 2005, boundaries between organizations hampered rescue efforts following Hurricane Katrina.
Image courtesy of Kyle Niemi,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/KatrinaNewOrleansFlooded_edit2.jpg.
To avoid similar problems from arising in the future, barriers between the National Guard and active-duty
military units are being bridged by special military officers called dual-status commanders. These
individuals will be empowered to lead both types of units during a disaster recovery effort, helping to
ensure that all areas receive the attention they need in a timely manner.
Reasons for Changing an Organization’s Structure
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 295
Creating an organizational structure is not a onetime activity. Executives must revisit an organization’s
structure over time and make changes to it if certain danger signs arise. For example, a structure might
need to be adjusted if decisions with the organization are being made too slowly or if the organization is
performing poorly. Both these problems plagued Sears Holdings in 2008, leading executives to reorganize
the company.
Although it was created to emphasize the need for unity among the American colonies, this famous 1754 graphic by
Ben Franklin also illustrates a fundamental truth about structure: If the parts that make up a firm do not work
together, the firm is likely to fail.
Image courtesy of Wikipedia, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Benjamin_Franklin_-
_Join_or_Die.jpg.
Sears’s new structure organized the firm around five types of divisions: (1) operating businesses (such as
clothing, appliances, and electronics), (2) support units (certain functional areas such as marketing and
finance), (3) brands (which focus on nurturing the firm’s various brands such as Lands’ End, Joe Boxer,
Craftsman, and Kenmore), (4) online, and (5) real estate. At the time, Sears’s chairman Edward S.
Lampert noted that “by creating smaller focused teams that are clearly responsible for their units, we
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 296
[will] increase autonomy and accountability, create greater ownership and enable faster, better
decisions.” [7] Unfortunately, structural changes cannot cure all a company’s ills. As of July 2011, Sears’s
stock was worth just over half what it had been worth five years earlier.
Sometimes structures become too complex and need to be simplified. Many observers believe that this
description fits Cisco. The company’s CEO, John Chambers, has moved Cisco away from a hierarchical
emphasis toward a focus on horizontal linkages. As of late 2009, Cisco had four types of such linkages. For
any given project, a small team of people reported to one of forty-seven boards. The boards averaged
fourteen members each. Forty-three of these boards each reported to one of twelve councils. Each council
also averaged fourteen members. The councils reported to an operating committee consisting of
Chambers and fifteen other top executives. Four of the forty-seven boards bypassed the councils and
reported directly to the operating committee. These arrangements are so complex and time consuming
that some top executives spend 30 percent of their work hours serving on more than ten of the boards,
councils, and the operating committee.
Because it competes in fast-changing high-tech markets, Cisco needs to be able to make competitive
moves quickly. The firm’s complex structural arrangements are preventing this. In late 2007, Hewlett-
Packard (HP) started promoting a warranty service that provides free support and upgrades within the
computer network switches market. Because Cisco’s response to this initiative had to work its way
through multiple committees, the firm did not take action until April 2009. During the delay, Cisco’s
share of the market dropped as customers embraced HP’s warranty. This problem and others created by
Cisco’s overly complex structure were so severe that one columnist wondered aloud “has Cisco’s John
Chambers lost his mind?” [8] In the summer of 2011, Chambers reversed course and decided to return
Cisco to a more traditional structure while reducing the firm’s workforce by 9 percent. Time will tell
whether these structural changes will boost Cisco’s stock price, which remained flat between 2006 and
mid-2011.
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
Executives must select among the four types of structure (simple, functional, multidivisional, and matrix)
available to organize operations. Each structure has unique advantages, and the selection of structures
involves a series of trade-offs.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 297
E X E R C I S E S
1. What type of structure best describes the organization of your college or university? What led you to
reach your conclusion?
2. The movie Office Space illustrates two types of structures. What are some other scenes or themes from
movies that provide examples or insights relevant to understanding organizational structure?
[1] Jacobius, A. 2011, July 25. GE Capital slowly moving back into lending waters. Pensions & Investments.
Retrieved fromhttp://www.pionline.com/article/20110725/PRINTSUB/110729949
[2] McWilliams, J. 2011, May 19. Coca-Cola names Bea Perez chief sustainability officer.Atlantic-Journal
Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/business/coca-cola-names-bea-951741.html
[3] This discussion of matrix structures is adapted from Ketchen, D. J., & Short, J. C. 2011. Separating fads from
facts: Lessons from “the good, the fad, and the ugly.” Business Horizons, 54, 17–22.
[4] Askenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. 1995. The boundaryless organization: Breaking down the chains of
organizational structure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[5] Hamel, G. 2007, September 27. What Google, Whole Foods do best. CNNMoney. Retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/26/news/companies/management_hamel. fortune/index.htm
[6] Elliott, D. 2011, July 3. New type of commander may avoid Katrina-like chaos. Yahoo! News. Retrieved from
http://news.yahoo.com/type-commander-may-avoid-katrina-chaos-153 143508.html
[7] Sears restructures business units. Retail Net. Retrieved from http://www.retailnet.com /story.cfm?ID=41613.
[8] Blodget, H. 2009, August 6. Has Cisco’s John Chambers lost his mind? Business Insider. Retrieved
from http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-has-ciscos-john- chambers-lost-his-mind-2009-8
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 298
9.3 Creating Organizational Control Systems
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Understand the three types of control systems.
2. Know the strengths and weaknesses of common management fads.
In addition to creating an appropriate organizational structure, effectively executing strategy
depends on the skillful use of organizational control systems. Executives create strategies to try to
achieve their organization’s vision, mission, and goals. Organizational control systems allow
executives to track how well the organization is performing, identify areas of concern, and then take
action to address the concerns. Three basic types of control systems are available to executives: (1)
output control, (2) behavioral control, and (3) clan control. Different organizations emphasize
different types of control, but most organizations use a mix of all three types.
Output Control
Output control focuses on measurable results within an organization. Examples from the business world
include the number of hits a website receives per day, the number of microwave ovens an assembly line
produces per week, and the number of vehicles a car salesman sells per month (Figure 9.6 "Output
Controls"). In each of these cases, executives must decide what level of performance is acceptable,
communicate expectations to the relevant employees, track whether performance meets expectations, and
then make any needed changes. In an ironic example, a group of post office workers in Pensacola, Florida,
were once disappointed to learn that their paychecks had been lost—by the US Postal Service! The
corrective action was simple: they started receiving their pay via direct deposit rather than through the
mail.
Many times the stakes are much higher. In early 2011, Delta Air Lines was forced to face some facts as
part of its use of output control. Data gathered by the federal government revealed that only 77.4 percent
of Delta’s flights had arrived on time during 2010. This performance led Delta to rank dead last among the
major US airlines and fifteenth out of eighteen total carriers. [1] In response, Delta took important
corrective steps. In particular, the airline added to its ability to service airplanes and provided more
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 299
customer service training for its employees. Because some delays are inevitable, Delta also announced
plans to staff a Twitter account called Delta Assist around the clock to help passengers whose flights are
delayed. These changes and others paid off. For the second quarter of 2011, Delta enjoyed a $198 million
profit, despite having to absorb a $1 billion increase in its fuel costs due to rising prices. [2]
Output control also plays a big part in the college experience. For example, test scores and grade point
averages are good examples of output measures. If you perform badly on a test, you might take corrective
action by studying harder or by studying in a group for the next test. At most colleges and universities, a
student is put on academic probation when his grade point average drops below a certain level. If the
student’s performance does not improve, he may be removed from his major and even dismissed. On the
positive side, output measures can trigger rewards too. A very high grade point average can lead to
placement on the dean’s list and graduating with honors.
While most scholarships require a high GPA, comedian David Letterman created a scholarship for
a “C” student at Ball State University. Ball State later named a new communications and media
building after its very famous alumnus.
Image courtesy of Kyle
Flood,http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/David_Letterman_building.jpg.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 300
Behavioral Control
While output control focuses on results, behavioral control focuses on controlling the actions that
ultimately lead to results. In particular, various rules and procedures are used to standardize or to dictate
behavior. In most states, for example, signs are posted in restaurant bathrooms reminding employees
that they must wash their hands before returning to work. The dress codes that are enforced within
many organizations are another example of behavioral control. To try to prevent employee theft, many firms
have a rule that requires checks to be signed by two people. And in a somewhat bizarre example, some automobile
factories dictate to workers how many minutes they can spend in restrooms during their work shift.
Behavioral control also plays a significant role in the college experience. An illustrative (although perhaps
unpleasant) example is penalizing students for not attending class. Professors grade attendance to dictate
students’ behavior; specifically, to force students to attend class. Meanwhile, if you were to suggest that a
rule should be created to force professors to update their lectures at least once every five years, we would
not disagree with you.
Outside the classroom, behavioral control is a major factor within college athletic programs. The National
Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) governs college athletics using a huge set of rules, policies, and
procedures. The NCAA’s rulebook on behavior is so complex that virtually all coaches violate its rules at
one time or another. Critics suggest that the behavioral controls instituted by the NCAA have reached an
absurd level. Nevertheless, some degree of behavioral control is needed within virtually all organizations.
Creating an effective reward structure is key to effectively managing behavior because people tend to focus
their efforts on the rewarded behaviors. Problems can arise when people are rewarded for behaviors that
seem positive on the surface but that can actually undermine organizational goals under some
circumstances. For example, restaurant servers are highly motivated to serve their tables quickly because
doing so can increase their tips. But if a server devotes all his or her attention to providing fast service,
other tasks that are vital to running a restaurant, such as communicating effectively with managers, host
staff, chefs, and other servers, may suffer. Managers need to be aware of such trade-offs and strive to align
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 301
rewards with behaviors. For example, waitstaff who consistently behave as team players could be assigned
to the most desirable and lucrative shifts, such as nights and weekends.
Although some behavioral controls are intended for employees and not customers, following them
is beneficial to everyone.
Image courtesy of Sterilgutassistentin,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manhattan_New_York_City_2009_PD_20091130_209.JPG.
Clan Control
Instead of measuring results (as in outcome control) or dictating behavior (as in behavioral
control), clan control is an informal type of control. Specifically, clan control relies on shared traditions,
expectations, values, and norms to lead people to work toward the good of their organization.
Clan control is often used heavily in settings where creativity is vital, such as many high-
tech businesses. In these companies, output is tough to dictate, and many rules are not appropriate. The
creativity of a research scientist would be likely to be stifled, for example, if she were given a quota of
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 302
patents that she must meet each year (output control) or if a strict dress code were enforced (behavioral
control).
Google is a firm that relies on clan control to be successful. Employees are permitted to spend 20 percent
of their workweek on their own innovative projects. The company offers an ‘‘ideas mailing list’’ for
employees to submit new ideas and to comment on others’ ideas. Google executives routinely make
themselves available two to three times per week for employees to visit with them to present their ideas.
These informal meetings have generated a number of innovations, including personalized home pages
and Google News, which might otherwise have never been adopted.
As part of the team-building effort at Google, new employees are known as Noogles and are given
a propeller hat to wear.
Image courtesy of Tduk Alex Lozupone,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Noogler.png.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 303
Some executives look to clan control to improve the performance of struggling organizations. In 2005,
Florida officials became fed up with complaints about surly clerks within the state’s driver’s license
offices. The solution was to look for help with training employees from two companies that are well-
known for friendly, engaged employees and excellent customer service. The first was The Walt Disney
Company, which offers world-famous hospitality at its Orlando theme parks. The second was regional
supermarket chain Publix, a firm whose motto stressed that “shopping is a pleasure” in its stores. The goal
of the training was to build the sort of positive team spirit Disney and Publix enjoy. The state’s highway
safety director summarized the need for clan control when noting that “we’ve just got to change a little
culture out there.” [3]
Clan control is also important on many college campuses. Philanthropic and social organizations such as
clubs, fraternities, and sororities often revolve around shared values and team spirit. More broadly, many
campuses have treasured traditions that bind alumni together across generations. Purdue University, for
example, proudly owns the world’s largest drum. The drum is beaten loudly before home football games
to fire up the crowd. After athletic victories, Auburn University students throw rolls of toilet paper into
campus oak trees. At Clark University, Rollins College, and Emory University, time-honored traditions
that involve spontaneously canceling classes surprise and delight students. These examples and
thousands of others spread across the country’s colleges and universities help students feel like they
belong to something special.
Management Fads: Out of Control?
Don’t chase the latest management fads. The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the
team’s mission.
– Colin Powell
The emergence and disappearance of fads appears to be a predictable aspect of modern society. A fad
arises when some element of popular culture becomes enthusiastically embraced by a group of people.
Over the past few decades, for example, fashion fads have included leisure suits (1970s), “Members Only”
jackets (1980s), Doc Martens shoes (1990s), and Crocs (2000s). Ironically, the reason a fad arises is also
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 304
usually the cause of its demise. The uniqueness (or even outrageousness) of a fashion, toy, or hairstyle
creates “buzz” and publicity but also ensures that its appeal is only temporary. [4]
Fads also seem to be a predictable aspect of the business world. As with cultural fads, many
provocative business ideas go through a life cycle of creating buzz, captivating a group of
enthusiastic adherents, and then giving way to the next fad. Bookstore shelves offer a seemingly
endless supply of popular management books whose premises range from the intriguing to
the absurd. Within the topic of leadership, for example, various books promise to reveal the “leadership
secrets” of an eclectic array of famous individuals such as Jesus Christ, Hillary Clinton, Attila the Hun,
and Santa Claus.
Beyond the striking similarities between cultural and business fads, there are also important differences.
Most cultural fads are harmless, and they rarely create any long-term problems for those that embrace
them. In contrast, embracing business fads could lead executives to make bad decisions. As our quote
from Colin Powell suggests, relying on sound business practices is much more likely to help executives to
execute their organization’s strategy than are generic words of wisdom from Old St. Nick.
Many management fads have been closely tied to organizational control systems. For example, one of the
best-known fads was an attempt to use output control to improve
performance. Management by objectives (MBO) is a process wherein managers and employees work
together to create goals. These goals guide employees’ behaviors and serve as the benchmarks for
assessing their performance. Following the presentation of MBO in Peter Drucker’s 1954 book The
Practice of Management, many executives embraced the process as a cure-all for organizational problems
and challenges.
Like many fads, however, MBO became a good idea run amok. Companies that attempted to create an
objective for every aspect of employees’ activities eventually discovered that this was unrealistic. The
creation of explicit goals can conflict with activities involving tacit knowledge about the organization.
Intangible notions such as “providing excellent customer service,” “treating people right,” and “going the
extra mile” are central to many organizations’ success, but these notions are difficult if not impossible to
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 305
quantify. Thus, in some cases, getting employees to embrace certain values and other aspects of clan
control is more effective than MBO.
Quality circles were a second fad that built on the notion of behavioral control. Quality circles began in
Japan in the 1960s and were first introduced in the United States in 1972. A quality circle is a formal
group of employees that meets regularly to brainstorm solutions to organizational problems. As the name
“quality circle” suggests, identifying behaviors that would improve the quality of products and the
operations management processes that create the products was the formal charge of many quality circles.
While the quality circle fad depicted quality as the key driver of productivity, it quickly became apparent
that this perspective was too narrow. Instead, quality is just one of four critical dimensions of the
production process; speed, cost, and flexibility are also vital. Maximizing any one of these four dimensions
often results in a product that simply cannot satisfy customers’ needs. Many products with perfect quality,
for example, would be created too slowly and at too great a cost to compete in the market effectively. Thus
trade-offs among quality, speed, cost, and flexibility are inevitable.
Improving clan control was the aim of sensitivity-training groups (or T-groups) that were used in many
organizations in the 1960s. This fad involved gatherings of approximately eight to fifteen people openly
discussing their emotions, feelings, beliefs, and biases about workplace issues. In stark contrast to the
rigid nature of MBO, the T-group involved free-flowing conversations led by a facilitator. These
discussions were thought to lead individuals to greater understanding of themselves and others. The
anticipated results were more enlightened workers and a greater spirit of teamwork.
Research on social psychology has found that groups are often far crueler than individuals. Unfortunately,
this meant that the candid nature of T-group discussions could easily degenerate into accusations and
humiliation. Eventually, the T-group fad gave way to recognition that creating potentially hurtful
situations has no place within an organization. Hints of the softer side of T-groups can still be observed in
modern team-building fads, however. Perhaps the best known is the “trust game,” which claims to build
trust between employees by having individuals fall backward and depend on their coworkers to catch
them.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 306
Improving clan control was the basis for the fascination with organizational culture that was all the rage
in the 1980s. This fad was fueled by a best-selling 1982 book titled In Search of Excellence: Lessons from
America’s Best-Run Companies. Authors Tom Peters and Robert Waterman studied companies that they
viewed as stellar performers and distilled eight similarities that were shared across the companies. Most
of the similarities, including staying “close to the customer” and “productivity through people,” arose from
powerful corporate cultures. The book quickly became an international sensation; more than three million
copies were sold in the first four years after its publication.
Soon it became clear that organizational culture’s importance was being exaggerated. Before long, both
the popular press and academic research revealed that many of Peters and Waterman’s “excellent”
companies quickly had fallen on hard times. Basic themes such as customer service and valuing one’s
company are quite useful, but these clan control elements often cannot take the place of holding
employees accountable for their performance.
The history of fads allows us to make certain predictions about today’s hot ideas, such as empowerment,
“good to great,” and viral marketing. Executives who distill and act on basic lessons from these fads are
likely to enjoy performance improvements. Empowerment, for example, builds on important research
findings regarding employees—many workers have important insights to offer to their firms, and these
workers become more engaged in their jobs when executives take their insights seriously. Relying too
heavily on a fad, however, seldom turns out well.
Just as executives in the 1980s could not treat In Search of Excellence as a recipe for success, today’s
executives should avoid treating James Collins’s 2001 best-selling book Good to Great: Why Some
Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t as a detailed blueprint for running their companies.
Overall, executives should understand that management fads usually contain a core truth that can help
organizations improve but that a balance of output, behavioral, and clan control is needed within most
organizations. As legendary author Jack Kerouac noted, “Great things are not accomplished by those who
yield to trends and fads and popular opinion.”
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 307
Organizational control systems are a vital aspect of executing strategy because they track performance
and identify adjustments that need to be made. Output controls involve measurable results. Behavioral
controls involve regulating activities rather than outcomes. Clan control relies on a set of shared values,
expectations, traditions, and norms. Over time, a series of fads intended to improve organizational control
processes have emerged. Although these fads tend to be seen as cure-alls initially, executives eventually
realize that an array of sound business practices is needed to create effective organizational controls.
E X E R C I S E S
1. What type of control do you think works most effectively with you and why?
2. What are some common business practices that you predict will be considered fads in the future?
3. How could you integrate each type of control intro a college classroom to maximize student learning?
[1] Yamanouchi, K. 2011, February 10. Delta ranks near bottom in on-time performance.Atlanta-Journal
Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/business/delta-ranks-near-bottom-834380.html
[2] Yamanouchi, K. 2011, July 27. Delta has $198 million profit, says 2,000 took buyouts.Atlanta-Journal
Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.ajc.com/business/delta-has-198-million-1050461.html
[3] Bousquet, S. 2005, September 23. For surly license clerks. a pound of charm. St Petersburg Times. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/23/State/For_surly_license _cle.shtml
[4] This discussion of management fads is adapted from Ketchen, D. J., & Short, J. C. 2011. Separating fads from
facts: Lessons from “the good, the fad, and the ugly.” Business Horizons, 54, 17–22.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 308
9.4 Legal Forms of Business
L E A R N I N G O B J E C T I V E S
1. Know the three basic legal forms of business.
2. Know the two specialized types of corporations.
Choosing a Form of Business
The legal form a firm chooses to operate under is an important decision with implications for how a firm
structures its resources and assets. Several legal forms of business are available to executives. Each
involves a different approach to dealing with profits and losses (Figure 9.10 "Business Forms").
There are three basic forms of business. A sole proprietorship is a firm that is owned by one person. From
a legal perspective, the firm and its owner are considered one and the same. On the plus side, this means
that all profits are the property of the owner (after taxes are paid, of course). On the minus side, however,
the owner is personally responsible for the firm’s losses and debts. This presents a tremendous risk. If a
sole proprietor is on the losing end of a significant lawsuit, for example, the owner could find his personal
assets forfeited. Most sole proprietorships are small and many have no employees. In most towns, for
example, there are a number of self-employed repair people, plumbers, and electricians who work alone
on home repair jobs. Also, many sole proprietors run their businesses from their homes to avoid expenses
associated with operating an office.
In a partnership, two or more partners share ownership of a firm. A partnership is similar to a sole
proprietorship in that the partners are the only beneficiaries of the firm’s profits, but they are also
responsible for any losses and debts. Partnerships can be especially attractive if each person’s expertise
complements the others. For example, an accountant who specializes in preparing individual tax returns
and another who has mastered business taxes might choose to join forces to offer customers a more
complete set of tax services than either could offer alone.
From a practical standpoint, a partnership allows a person to take time off without closing down the
business temporarily. Sander & Lawrence is a partnership of two home builders in Tallahassee, Florida.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 309
When Lawrence suffered a serious injury a few years ago, Sander was able to take over supervising his
projects and see them through to completion. Had Lawrence been a sole proprietor, his customers would
have suffered greatly. However, a person who chooses to be part of a partnership rather than operating
alone as a sole proprietor also takes on some risk; your partner could make bad decisions that end up
costing you a lot of money. Thus developing trust and confidence in one’s partner is very important.
Most large firms, such as Southwest Airlines, are organized as corporations. A key difference between
a corporation on the one hand and a sole proprietorship and a partnership on the other is that
corporations involve the separation of ownership and management. Corporations sell shares of ownership
that are publicly traded in stock markets, and they are managed by professional executives. These
executives may own a significant portion of the corporation’s stock, but this is not a legal requirement.
Another unique feature of corporations is how they deal with profits and losses. Unlike in sole
proprietorships and partnerships, a corporation’s owners (i.e., shareholders) do not directly receive
profits or absorb losses. Instead, profits and losses indirectly affect shareholders in two ways. First, profits
and losses tend to be reflected in whether the firm’s stock price rises or falls. When a shareholder sells her
stock, the firm’s performance while she has owned the stock will influence whether she makes a profit
relative to her stock purchase. Shareholders can also benefit from profits if a firm’s executives decide to
pay cash dividends to shareholders. Unfortunately, for shareholders, corporate profits and any dividends
that these profits support are both taxed. This double taxation is a big disadvantage of corporations.
A specialized type of corporation called an S corporation avoids double taxation. Much like in a
partnership, the firm’s profits and losses are reported on owners’ personal tax returns in proportion with
each owner’s share of the firm. Although this is an attractive feature, an S corporation would be
impractical for most large firms because the number of shareholders in an S corporation is capped,
usually at one hundred. In contrast, Southwest Airlines has more than ten thousand shareholders. For
smaller firms, such as many real-estate agencies, the S corporation is an attractive form of business.
A final form of business is very popular, yet it is not actually recognized by the federal government as a
form of business. Instead, the ability to create a limited liability company (LLC) is granted in state laws.
LLCs mix attractive features of corporations and partnerships. The owners of an LLC are not personally
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 310
responsible for debts that the LLC accumulates (like in a corporation) and the LLC can be run in a flexible
manner (like in a partnership). When paying federal taxes, however, an LLC must choose to be treated as
a corporation, a partnership, or a sole proprietorship. Many home builders (including Sander &
Lawrence), architectural businesses, and consulting firms are LLCs.
K E Y T A K E A W A Y
The three major forms of business in the United States are sole proprietorships, partnerships, and
corporations. Each form has implications for how individuals are taxed and resources are managed and
deployed. E X E R C I S E S
1. Why are so many small firms sole proprietorships?
2. Find an example of a firm that operates as an LLC. Why do you think the owners of this firm chose this
form of business over others?
3. Why might different forms of business be more likely to rely on a different organizational structure?
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 311
9.5 Conclusion
This chapter explains elements of organizational design that are vital for executing strategy. Leaders
of firms, ranging from the smallest sole proprietorship to the largest global corporation, must make
decisions about the delegation of authority and responsibility when organizing activities within their
firms. Deciding how to best divide labor to increase efficiency and effectiveness is often the starting
point for more complex decisions that lead to the creation of formal organizational charts. While
small businesses rarely create organization charts, firms that embrace functional, multidivisional,
and matrix structures often have reporting relationships with considerable complexity. To execute
strategy effectively, managers also depend on the skillful use of organizational control systems that
involve output, behavioral, and clan controls. Although introducing more efficient business practices
to improve organizational functioning is desirable, executives need to avoid letting their firms
become “out of control” by being skeptical of management fads. Finally, the legal form a business
takes is an important decision with implications for a firm’s organizational structure.
Saylor URL: http://www.saylor.org/books Saylor.org 312
E X E R C I S E S
1. The following chart is an organizational chart for the US federal government. What type of the four
structures mentioned in this chapter best fits what you see in this chart?
2. How does this structure explain why the government seems to move at an incredibly slow pace?
3. What changes could be made to speed up the government? Would they be beneficial?
Posted in 