Case Study:
1. Designing and Redesigning Cisco
As the leader of research and development, what would be a cause of change in each of the structures?
After reading the case of CISCO, it is clear that the company faced mixed types of the situations in the business. Every wants to earn profits and survive in the market and this is the reason that firm makes various changes in its process, working style and structure (Nelson, &Pasternack, 2005). In the case of the CISCO, the company face lots of internal and external challenges. But there are different causes of implementing the changes in the organizational structure. Earlier, the CISCO has Product based structure. The main cause of this type of the structure was to promote the different types of the products in the market. Later, the company moved towards a more customer-focussed structure. As according to the research and development, it was found that it is important to satisfy the needs of each and every customer. So company wants to change its structure. So they can focus on the customers and their specific needs. Further the company again re-organized and divide into three main divisions to satisfy the needs of the three types of the customers to provide the right product to the right customer as according to their segment. But again, it was found in research that this type of the structure is increasing the cost and are not fulfill the demand of the customers with satisfaction. So the Company moved towards the functional structure for reducing the unnecessary cost, standardized the process and reducing the cost of the product (Hollenbeck, Moon, Ellis, West, &Ilgen, 2002). But again, this was the problematic structure because this structure was not focussing on the customers and their specific needs. Technology organization was created to focus on the customers. So there can be the best match between the needs of the customer and the availability of the technology. The main reason of implementing this new structure was to avail most of the opportunities of the market and to minimize the challenges of the company (Root III).
References
Hollenbeck, J. R., Moon, H., Ellis, A. P. J., West, B. J., &Ilgen, D. R (2002). Structural contingency theory and individual differences: Examination of external and internal person-team fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 599-606.
Nelson, G. L., &Pasternack, B. A. (2005). Results: Keep what's good, fix what's wrong, and unlock great performance. New York: Crown Business.
Root III, G.N., Demand Media. What Causes Structural Change Within an Organization? Retrieved on November 12th, 2014 from
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/causes-structural-change-within-organization-436.html
2. The major problem or concern in adjustments of the group structures is the way of dealing with the development of relationship between the subordinates and the bosses. This is due to the change in the area of control for every person which may be applied in the new structure. Therefore, looking at each of the structures from the HR manager's perspective will be as follows.
Concerns with Product Based Structure
The HR director in this case should be in charge of groups that are formed to deal with each individual structure. The HR thus must address the concerns given the distinctive ability with regard to intricacy, the aptitude required and correspondence level between groups. Likewise, there are issues that are identified with particular work done for each of the product groups that may not be operating well. This can be done through properly developed HR strategy (Cummings, & Worley, 2014).
Concerns with Functional Structure
In the functional structure, each specialized area has a team regardless of the products they are in charge of. They are best for organizations producing standardized commodities and service it in large quantities at a low cost. They are thus the most efficient for a firm operating in a stable and less dynamic environment. Organizational structures for example the divisional structure are best applied in firms operating in an uncertain environment and in complex situations. In addition, functional structures are categorized by high levels of formalization, making every function reliant on the established mechanism of operation (Scott, & Davis, 2015). This leads to the placement of the responsibility of making decisions to a higher authority. The HR should be involved in developing and implementing measures that help to deal with issues of formalization in the organization. As can be seen in the BP case, the HR had a great role to play in the company's functional structure but the environment was more complex for this structure.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization Development and Change. New York: Cengage Learning.
Scott, W. R. & Davis, G. F. (2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspective. Boston: Routledge.