Organizational Structure, Culture and Knowledge

Organizational Structure, Culture and Knowledge

The nature and dynamics of organizations today are shaped by various factors, often implicitly manifested rather than explicitly shown. Both an organization's nature and dynamics provide it its distinct identity from other organizations. In fact, a review of extant literature on organizational studies highlights the importance of structure, culture, and knowledge base as critical factors contributing to organizational identity and dynamics. In the texts that will follow, a review of three (3) journal articles on organizational studies will be discussed, centering on the abovementioned three critical factors: structure, culture, and knowledge base. This paper will conclude with an assertion of how structure, culture, and knowledge base describe or characterize the nature and dynamics of most organizations today.

Ozman's (2010) study centered on the relationship between the formation of an organization's structure through its knowledge base of products. This relationship was established to demonstrate that contemporary organizations have been increasingly becoming dependent and defined by the kind of knowledge that they possess and utilize for the company's growth. In the study, Ozman identified that organizations are characteristically defined based on the breadth and depth of their knowledge base. Knowledge breadth looks at the complexity of products that the organization has, and "measures" this complexity's expansion to "different competences." Knowledge depth, meanwhile, is best defined by "economies of scope" and "measures" how identified competences in the organization's knowledge base can be used and applied to different kinds of products (pp. 1135-6).

Both knowledge breadth and depth contributed to organizational structure because organizations depend on the nature of the knowledge and products in developing the business or organizational model that will be a good fit for them, according to Ozman. Thus, business organizations, for example, either become generalist or specialist organizations depending on the knowledge they have and kinds of products they produce. Ultimately, an organization is more diversified if there is a high level of knowledge used and applied to its different kinds of products. This makes the organizational structure shallow but more expanded, descriptive of business organizations in the area of manufacturing (p. 1142). On the opposite end of the spectrum, an organization's structure is considered to be highly defined if there is a "narrow knowledge base," wherein knowledge is used/applied only to one product and product diversity is low. This is characteristic of specialist industries or organizations such as service and specialty shops (pp. 1139-1141).

Another kind of knowledge base is also explored and determined in determining the culture of different organizations across different countries, as reflected in Thomas et al.'s (2010) "psychological contracts" study. In this study, the researchers explored the concept of "psychological contract" and how it applies to and potentially determines cultures and sub-cultures that would emerge in organizations. Defining it as "individual beliefs or perceptions concerning the terms of…relationship between the individual and the organization," psychological contracts are identified into the following dimensions: (1) vertical or horizontal, referring to social status and power in "exchange relationships" and (2) individualism and collectivism, reflecting people's self-concept, based from themselves and other people's perceptions (p. 1440). Results of the study showed that indeed, different countries manifested different kinds of psychological contracts from its employees. The Chinese tend to be more "custodial" in their approach, which is best described as a 'vertical-collectivist,' a highly cooperative relationship with also high regard to social status. The French have an "exploitive" employer-employee relationship (vertical-individualist), Canadians as "instrumental" (horizontal-individualist), and the Norwegians "communitarian" (horizontal-collectivist) (p. 1442). The study demonstrated the role that knowledge about cultures play in determining the best organizational strategy and structure that an organization should adapt given its nature or identity/character.

Lastly, Fiedler and Welpe's (2010) exploration of the relationship between organizational memory and structure uncovered findings that highlighted the role that information or knowledge played in enhancing or improving organizational memory among its members/employees. Critical factors uncovered were codification of information (frequency of documenting information and results during professional and personal interactions among members/employees) and electronic communication (transfer of information/knowledge using computer and Internet technologies) (pp. 392-3). High usage of these factors were found to increase members'/employees' "memory" of their organization -- its nature, dynamics, and identity.