1 Name Professor Course Date Organizational structuring It is called the natures phenomenon of survival for the fittest, whichever

way one may look at it; it is evident that only the fit survives. This has since become more evident in business circles as companies continue to strive for competitive advantage over others, which is a strategy to stay afloat in this dynamic and ever improving sector in a globalizing world. There are many organizations worldwide, and it may seem obvious to many that these organizations just exist when, in actual sense they have to survive. It is noteworthy that any organization that is made up of more than one person will need some form of the organizational structure. This is because an organizational structure is characterized by a number of activities that are directed towards the achievement of firms aims and objectives (Stephen & Coulter 2003, 40). Therefore, an organization with the best structures in place to achieve organizational goals and objectives in an efficient and effective way will always remain standing at the end of it all. Organizational structures have been in existence for a long time now, and they have impressed in their times of application. For instance, the classical organization structure had uncomplicated centralized design that resulted into a bureaucratic and divisionalized organization (Huebsch 2012, 1). The traditional structure is like a pyramid with the president occupying the top followed by few vice presidents, layers of management and finally the

2 employees at the bottom making the majority. However, it is noteworthy the currently changing business environments have made the traditional structure inefficient in achievement of organizational goals. This has seen organizations adopting the contemporary organizational structures that function to flatten the traditional structures to enable seamless flow of information in the organization (Stephen & Coulter 2003, 41). One such an organization is Coca cola Company, which has adopted a decentralized system. The company has been divided into six operating units creating an international area structure, and this helps to handle the enormous capacity of its business, (The Times 100 2011, 3). These groups include Middle and Far East, Europe group, The Latin America Group, North America group, Africa group and the Minute Maid Company (The Times 100 2011,5). At the same time, the company seeks to meet customized needs of these regional markets, and their structure is geared towards this by enabling regional directors to go into the market test products and have the decisions channeled to the main office head quartered in the US. Therefore, its structure composes of one CEO in the US, ten directors, with twelve other management positions. This structure flattens the traditional pyramid structure, which is characterized by reduced flow of information that lengthens the time taken to solve problems or make decisions. Stephen & Coulter (2003, 43) asserts that organizations can only be capable of delivering their goals effectively when the structure and strategy are woven together in a seamless manner. This is evident of Coca-Cola where because it wants to sell their brands worldwide they have strategized to serve customers creatively by decentralizing the system. This has allowed for flexible decision making where employees are put in groups to encourage teamwork to bring employees with different expertise together (Stephen & Coulter 2003, 43). These meetings have been essential in

3 improving their brands and consumer satisfaction where the target population gets what they prefer. This liberation given to employees to participate in decision making has in turn resulted into motivated employees who have now become the engine of growth for the company (Girard, R 2005, 1). Therefore, the teamwork, decentralized organizational structure and timely decisions has steered coca cola to meeting their aim of satisfying customers with specialized products and timely attendance to their needs. Moreover, the democratic relation between management and employees that are contributed by the almost flat structure has benefited the company a terrific deal. Another company that has chosen to deviate from the traditional organizational structure is Starbucks Company. Just like Coca-Cola, Starbucks has a decentralized authority where each manager apart from the CEO has been granted decision making responsibilities (Schreiner 2012, 12). Being the largest coffee house company in the world, Starbuck has arranged its organizational structure to that which can accommodate customer satisfaction appropriately. This company has thus adopted a matrix organizational structure where in as much as the Executives oversee the company from its headquarters in Seattle, Washington there is a chain of regional and district managers who oversee stores operations, thereby acting as chiefs (Schreiner 2012, 20). Under the chief, there is another layer of management of store managers and shift supervisors who oversee ground operations. The rest are employees, who, in most companies, they are the majority. However, at Starbucks, the organizational structure has been modeled in such a way that it almost a flat structure where there are a reasonable number of employees under one manager. For that matter, a CEO has approximately ten directors under him who manage different regions of the globe. The middle management is slightly broader than the top management with the bottom management just as many as the rest of the management. This is

4 different from the traditional structure which has a narrow top management and a wide bottom management. Gitman & McDaniel (2008, 182) assert that the matrix structure combines two different forms of functional and product departmentalization. Therefore, this is project based where people from different functional areas of the organization come together to work on a special project. This structure is characterized by employees having an enhanced access to the management, and for this case, an employee reports to both the line manager and the project manager (The Times 100 2011, 1). The company benefits from this structure in a considerable number of ways. First of all, when an employee gets to report to two managers, this shows efficient flow of communication within the employees and management, and this maximized communication channels leading to enhanced and timely decision making (Stephen & Coulter (2003, 43). Moreover, the company has achieved a lot in terms of market specialization where they have advanced in development of products that are specified to market appeal, and this explains why different regions have different brands. Teamwork which characterizes matrix organizational structures has enabled Starbucks to increase creativity and innovation, thus capable of tackling complex tasks. It is noteworthy that a matrix structure enables employees work in the correct way, and this is because of the high control and greater supervision, which increases project performance and effectiveness (Stephen & Coulter 2003, 52). Meanwhile, if an employee is capable of reporting to two managers, this shows that the company has few, but skilled employees and this lead to efficient use of resources hence increasing productivity. Therefore, this structure has enabled Starbucks to open communication channels, and produce custom made products which have enhanced customer satisfaction.

5 Bibliography Girard, R. (2005). Coca-Cola company: inside the real company, Retrieved on 18th Sept from <http://www.insidethebottle.org/Corporate_profiles_files/Coke%20profile%20August%2 018.pdf> Gitman, L and McDaniel, C. (2008). The Future of Business: The Essentials, New York, Cengage Learning. Huebsch, R. (2012). Traditional hierarchical organizational structure, Retrieved on 18th Sep from < http://smallbusiness.chron.com/traditional-hierarchical-organizational-structure26174.html > Schreiner, E. (2012). Starbucks and its organizational design. Retrieved on 18th Sept from < http://smallbusiness.chron.com/starbucks-its-organizational-design-12857.html > Stephen, R and Coulter, M. (2003). Management, Seventh Edition, Prentice-Hall of India Limited, New Delhi. The Times 100 (2011). Creating an effective organizational structure: A Coca-Cola great Britain case study. Retrieved on 18th Sep from < http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/coca-cola-great-britain/creating-an-effectiveorganisational-structure/>