The employees of both organizations also need to have assurance of their roles being there in general, meaning no lay-offs or their pay not being impacted by the merger. While the case does not allude to this, a mechanistic organizational structure will make it easier for the leadership team to make these decisions and quickly, clearly and convincingly communicate them to the workers companywide. Taking a more mechanistic organization structure approach to the merged organizations will also ensure that the management teams and leaders of Indigo have an opportunity to iteratively refine and perfect core process areas as well (Tata, Prasad, 1992). The many benefits of organic structures in terms of openness of communication and egalitarian mindset would be better suited for the merged organization after the roles and responsibilities have been well-defined and the new organizational culture has solidified. Trust needs to pervade the new organizational structure for it to be effective, and a mechanist structure will greatly clarify roles, responsibil9tyu,, expectations and allow for process optimization instead of confusion (Tata, Prasad, 1992).
How might technology affect Indigo's organisational design?
Once the employees have the opportunity to "own" the merger through a strong focus on autonomy, mastery and purpose and the clarification of roles has been accomplished (Shim, Okamuro, 2011), the process areas next need to be continually optimized (Tata, Prasad, 1992). Only after these two steps are complete should Indigo begin to invest in Information technologies (it) to create greater levels of automation and efficiency. It will have a significant influence on the organizational design of the company in that it will accelerate communication and collaboration while also accentuating any process-related gaps in communication or strategy performance. Many retailers find their forecasting and selling strategies are not as integrated to demand management, supplier relationship management, pricing and financial systems when they automate their operations (Yeo, Ajam, 2010). For Indigo, the selective use of technology to enable greater accuracy, integration of core process areas, and the development of a more agile organizational structure over time is critical. The use of it is no panacea however, and can only accentuate and accelerate what has already been done at the process level first (Sidorova, Isik, 2010). Technology will affect the organizational design of Indigo, yet it will only reflect back in many ways the performance of the company as it is at the organizational and system level first. With the insights gained from these systems, the company will be able to navigate to a more agile organizational structure over time, become more competitive in chosen markets and more profitable as a result.
Indigo faces many challenges in making the merger with Chapters work. This analysis has evaluated those challenges and the corresponding opportunities for growth from an organizational structure perspective. The structure of the joined organizations will have a major impact on how well the employees stay motivated and to what extent they have the opportunity to take ownership of their jobs over time. The focus on making organizational structures support autonomy, mastery, and purpose as part of the transformational leadership paradigm of successful organizations needs to be pursued (Rijal, 2010). Indigo must also look at the organizational design as a means of enabling greater transformational leadership so that employees have a clear set of expectations regarding their future in the company as well. Core business process areas including those critical areas each company must have invested heavily in as evidenced by their market success include distributed order management system definition, the shared ownership of catalog management, supplier relationship management and supply chain management. The focus on how to optimize these profess areas before they are enabled with it must also be considered in the context of organizational design. Once all of these factors are taken into account, the organizational structure can be made more agile and capable of responding to market opportunities while mitigating threats.
Christensen, M., and T. Knudsen. 2010. Design of Decision-Making Organizations. Management Science 56, no. 1, (January 1): 71-89.
Cordes, C., P. Richerson, and G. Schwesinger. 2010. How corporate cultures coevolve with the business environment: The case of firm growth crises and industry evolution. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 76, no. 3, (December 1): 465.
Ellman, M., and P. Pezanis-Christou. 2010. Organizational Structure, Communication, and Group Ethics. The American Economic Review 100, no. 5, (December 1): 2478.
Gillen, Dennis J., and Carroll, Stephen J.. 1985. Relationship of Managerial Ability to Unit Effectiveness in More Organic vs. More Mechanistic Departments. The Journal of Management Studies 22, no. 6, (November 1): 668.
Uma D. Jogulu. 2010. Culturally-linked leadership styles. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31, no. 8, (November 20): 705-719.
Lichtenthaler, U.. 2010. Outward knowledge transfer: the impact of project-based organization on performance. Industrial and Corporate Change 19, no. 6, (December 1): 1705.
Nicolaou, a.. 2010. Integrated information systems and transparency in business reporting. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 7, no. 3, (August 1): 216-226.
Rijal, S.. 2010. Leadership Style and Organizational Culture in Learning Organization: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Management and Information Systems 14, no. 5, (October 1): 119-127.
Rice, George H., Jr.. 1980. A Set of Organizational Models. Human Resource Management 19, no. 2, (July 1): 19.
Shim, J., and H. Okamuro. 2011. Does ownership matter in mergers? A comparative study of the causes and consequences of mergers by family and non-family firms. Journal of Banking & Finance 35, no. 1, (January 1): 193.