Managers, Structure, Strategy, and Culture in Organizations
This paper examines four interrelated dimensions of organizational management. It begins by questioning the assumed link between managers and organizational success, then surveys managerial roles using Mintzberg's framework as applied to FedEx. The paper next contrasts mechanistic and organic organizational structures, drawing on Burns and Stalker's foundational work, before outlining the strategy formulation process — including both top-down and bottom-up approaches — again illustrated through FedEx's strategic evolution. Finally, it explores organizational culture, focusing on how companies can deliberately build and sustain a culture of innovation through leadership commitment, structural support, and meaningful rewards.
- The Role of Managers in Organizational Success: Managerial roles, FedEx example, logical caveats
- Mechanistic vs. Organic Organizational Structures: Structural differences, communication, career pathways
- Strategy Formulation: Process and Application: Top-down and bottom-up strategy, FedEx growth
- Building an Innovation Culture: Culture defined, innovation drivers, leadership role
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It applies abstract management concepts — such as Mintzberg's managerial roles and Burns and Stalker's mechanistic-organic distinction — to a concrete real-world company (FedEx), making theoretical content tangible and credible.
- The paper opens with a genuinely critical framing, challenging the assumption that managers are straightforwardly "important to success" by pointing out the logical fallacy of correlation, which signals analytical thinking rather than mere summarization.
- Each section builds logically on the previous one, moving from roles → structure → strategy → culture, creating a coherent progression through the field of management.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper consistently pairs theoretical frameworks with applied examples, a technique central to business and management writing. Rather than simply defining a concept (e.g., organic structure), the author explains its practical implications — such as how organic structures facilitate bottom-up strategy and reduce communication barriers — and grounds these claims in cited literature (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Courtright et al., 1989).
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four numbered task sections, each addressing a distinct management concept. Section 1 interrogates managerial importance critically before describing roles. Section 2 compares organizational structures with emphasis on their differences. Section 3 traces the strategy formulation process and applies it to FedEx's growth. Section 4 defines organizational culture and provides an extended analysis of building an innovation culture, concluding with actionable leadership guidance.
The Role of Managers in Organizational Success
Managers are commonly assumed to be integral to organizational success — but this assumption deserves scrutiny. All organizations, both the successful ones and the utter failures, have managers. So the question is not simply whether managers matter to success. Mathematically, there is 100% correlation between having managers and being successful, but equally 100% correlation between having managers and being unsuccessful.
There is also the issue of where organizational success actually comes from. First, one must define success: is it profitability? Exceptional profitability? Short-term or long-term? There are many variables that contribute to organizational success beyond the actions of management alone. To determine whether managers are integral to success, and to what degree, would require a control — and that is almost impossible to establish. One might say the managers at Google are exceptionally skilled, but without a parallel-universe Google with different managers, it is impossible to know how much of that success reflects shrewd managerial decision-making and how much reflects circumstance.
There are several roles that managers play within an organization, and these roles generally reflect the guiding of organizational resources toward the firm's objectives. Mintzberg's management roles framework, as outlined by Eyre (2015), identifies ten key roles: figurehead, leader, liaison, monitor, disseminator, spokesperson, entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator, and negotiator. The company examined here is FedEx. At FedEx, managers perform each of these roles, and different types of managers naturally perform them to different degrees.
As leaders, managers must set the vision for the organization and its objectives, then allocate resources toward achieving them. This encompasses everything from human resources policy and budgeting to determining how resources are organized. FedEx managers ensure that the right number of people are in place at each station and that aircraft are allocated efficiently — enabling packages to be moved around the world on time as consistently as possible. In meeting these standards, managers fulfill most of the remaining roles as well.
Overall, it is reasonable to expect that if two otherwise equal firms existed, the one with better managers would achieve better outcomes. Managers ensure that the daily activities of the organization are not only performed well, but that those activities support the overall strategy and vision that leadership has set. When this alignment exists, managers exert a positive influence. Conversely, when managers are poor, the organization struggles to operate effectively and is more likely to experience negative outcomes.
Mechanistic vs. Organic Organizational Structures
There are two main types of organizational structures: organic and mechanistic. A mechanistic organization features more rigid structures and roles, while an organic organization has more fluid roles and structures (Study.com, 2015). Most organizations are mechanistic, while many creative organizations — in technology, advertising, or engineering — tend to be more organic in nature.
The two structures share some similarities at a generalized level. Every company, even the most organic, has certain roles delegated to specific people. Even in a creative organization, someone must be responsible for accounting, and that person is likely to have an accounting background. So even the most organic organization retains some structure. And where roles are genuinely fluid, those roles must still be filled — even if different people fill them at different times.
The differences between these structures, however, are more striking than the similarities. There are notable contrasts in communication and interaction styles (Courtright, Fairhurst, & Rogers, 1989). In a mechanistic organization, formal structures tend to govern communication flows. While these flows need not be strictly top-down as in the military, hierarchy shapes communication more frequently, and informal barriers to interaction persist within the organization. In an organic organization, communication flows more freely across all levels, and ideas are evaluated on their own merit rather than judged by their source.
Career pathways also differ significantly. Members of a mechanistic organization may face a career path prescribed by tradition — something strictly hierarchical — whereas in an organic organization, advancement is determined more on the basis of merit. This reflects the fundamental difference between the two types. A mechanistic organization functions best when everyone performs a specific role and executes it well. An organic organization, by contrast, performs best when barriers to communication are minimized and the exchange of information and ideas is prioritized. The entire purpose of the organic structure is to reduce internal barriers to information flow in order to leverage organizational talent. This understanding of mechanistic-organic differences dates back to when the concepts were first described; it was also noted early on that organic structures are more common in organizations characterized by rapid change, while more stable organizations tend to function better with a mechanistic structure (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.