Organizational Concepts

Organizational mission: the organization's mission and purpose, stated in terms of benefits to customers, employees, and society
The mission of an organization is its guiding purpose, its reason for existing beyond the superficial aims of profiting its shareholders, owners, and staff members. At the very least, the organizational mission is linked to its core goals or objectives, which include the target population or market it serves, as well as why, and most importantly, how it will achieve those goals (Ahmed, 2019). The organization can also choose to break down its mission into more specific parts, explaining factors like its operating goals, overall performance objectives, use or allocation of resources, position in the marketplace, and more (Daft, 2013). Its mission statement will typically reveal the organization’s role vis-a-vis society at large, the target market or customer base, and also its employees.
All organizations serve some sort of need, typically via the provision of a product or service. The mission of the organization is directly linked to the way the organization conceptualizes that need, the niche in the market, and the function of the organization in fulfilling its central purpose. While the mission may remain flexible for fine-tuning, it should be general enough to capture the essence of the company’s vision to account for expansions into new markets or business sectors to accommodate for change and organizational growth. The mission of the organization also sets the tone for its value statement and the organizational culture. Through its mission statement, the organization can provide employees with the fundamental reasons underlying their roles, and also the purpose of organizational rules, standards, protocols, regulations, and hierarchies. Through its mission, the employees can also find the source of intrinsic motivation and engagement (Daft, 2013). In fact, the mission of the organization has a strong bearing on other organizational concepts such as the organizational structure.
Organizational structure: the organization's structure to best support the stated purpose
The structure of the organization is not arbitrary, but instead reflects its mission and vision. Daft (2013) points out how a clearly defined mission statement acts as a “guideline for employee behavior and decision making,” (p. 59). The protocols for inter-departmental and intra-departmental communication, for leadership, and for all types of strategic planning impact the structure of the organization. By the same token, the structure of the organization will have a strong and immediate bearing on its performance. Organizational structure is most easily defined as its hierarchy or “patterns of authority,” although there is much more to structure than simple chain of command concerns (Morgan, 2006, p. 21). The structure also refers to the subdivisions within the organization, such as departments, teams, and workgroups and how those units either work together or independently in order to achieve organizational goals.
Classical organizational structures are hierarchical or bureaucratic, with top-down authority and role differentiation. More contemporary models of organizational structure have a more flattened appearance, with power distributed more widely among personnel. There is no one correct type of organizational structure, but the structure should correspond with the mission, vision, and values to maximize efficiency, productivity, and goal orientation. Similarly, there are pros and cons to each type of organizational structure. Rigid hierarchies may be less capable of smoothly handling change, compared with looser structures in which employees share responsibility and roles (Morgan, 2006). The degree of differentiation, the nature of the industry, and even cultural variables may all constrain and influence the type of structure an organization develops.
Organizational contingency: environmental factors that will create the greatest impact on the organization
An organization never exists in isolation; all organizations are impacted by environmental factors. Those environmental variables may determine operational strategies, organizational design, and strategic planning within the organization. Contingency factors also include strategy, size, life cycle, technology, environment, and culture (Daft, 2013). Other contingencies include economic policy, global trade policies, labor policy, and shifts in social norms. Consumer behavior and consumer trends constitute yet another contingency variable impacting the organization. The behavior or performance of competitors or supply chain partners might also have a strong bearing on the organization.
Organizational contingencies are defined as any “factors that moderate the effect of organizational characteristics on organizational performance,” (Suhomlinova & Currie, 2016, p. 1). Contingencies show the organization’s leaders where it might need to remain flexible and prepared for crises and change due to internal or external threats. The organization’s success, its ability to fulfill its mission, is contingent on several factors and many of those factors may be beyond the immediate control of the organization itself. For example, the political climate, technological innovations, or shifts in demographics throughout a geographic region might all impact the ability of the organization to perform or meet its productivity goals. The organization needs to continually update its strategies and even its goals as it analyzes contingencies and works around them. An organization that is designed specifically to “fit the contingency factors of strategy, environment, size and life cycle, technology, and culture,” will become an effective organization (Daft, 2013, p. 67).
Leadership contingency: the type of leader that this organization will need (style, trait, skills, etc.)
An extension of organizational structure, leadership contingency shows how specific types of leaders will help guide the organization to fulfill its central mission and vision. Leadership makes or breaks organizations. The right leader for the organization is the one that understands the contingencies, the internal and external constraints, takes action in the best interest of the organization, and also motivates others to do the same. Trait models of leadership emphasize specific personality, behavioral, or character traits that can be conducive to effective leadership. While the trait model can be convenient and does clarify some desirable traits leaders may need in specific situations,
The contingency theory of leadership presents an alternative means of conceptualizing effective leadership in organizations. Leadership contingency divides leadership into two main styles: task-oriented versus relationship-oriented. The factors that determine the leader’s effectiveness is then contingent on the leader’s relationship to other members of the organization, the task structure of the organization, and positional power (Metcalf, n.d.). These contingencies are of course intimately tied in with organizational structure and culture. Some organizations need transformational leadership, others require servant leadership, while others yet need something like authoritarian or visionary leadership.
Leaders can use a variety of tactics to inspire and motivate employees. Alternatively, leaders could opt for a more authoritarian approach that disempowers individual employees using a more classical mechanistic model of labor exploitation in order to maximize short term gains. The ideal leadership style or type depends on the mission and values of the organization, its goals, and the organizational culture. Leaders also need to be decisive, remain open to taking calculated risks, be willing to change, monitor the external and internal environments for threats, build effective teams, and remain committed to organizational goals. Furthermore, effective leaders need to build succession plans that allow for smooth transitions and the longevity of the organization.
Worldview: Discuss how worldview influences this particular organization and its organizational members.
Many people will be surprised to learn that organizations can have a worldview. Even in a diverse organization, one in which individual employees may also have their own values or belief systems, the organization functions as a unit and therefore operates within a particular worldview. That worldview is likely to be defined at least in part in terms of the cultural and historical zeitgeist, but it might also be a subversive or disruptive organization that challenges prevailing norms, beliefs, and traditions. In The Universe Next Door, Sire (2009) describes worldview as a frame of reference that includes a belief system, a system of values, and a “spiritual orientation,” (p. 20). An organization can avoid overt discussions of its worldview, but ultimately the organization’s behaviors, and the decisions made by its leaders, will reflect a worldview. Articulating and recognizing that worldview can help clarify organizational goals, prevent conflicts within the organization, and also help the organization to more effectively and efficiently manage change.
Articulating its worldview can provide a sense of meaning, purpose, and vision for the members of the organization. The worldview informs the mission, vision, and value statements, and can be imparted to the general public to build a brand identity, communicate the organization’s commitment to social justice or environmental stewardship, and to align itself with strategic partners. When external or internal crises threaten the organization, its worldview can also help its leaders to adopt an ideal plan of action to mitigate problems and maximize value.
References
Ahmed, A. (2019). Importance of mission vision in organizational strategy. The Chronicle. Retrieved from: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-mission-vision-organizational-strategy-16000.html
Daft, R.L. (2013). Organizational theory and design. Boston: Cengage.
Metcalf, T. (n.d.). Contingency theory of organization. The Chronicle. Retrieved from: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/contingency-theory-organization-73865.html
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sire, J.W. (2009). The universe next door. Intervarsity.
Suhomlinova, O. & Currie, G. (2016). Organizational contingencies. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405165518.wbeoso019.pub2