Organizational Structure, Culture, and Employee Behavior
This paper examines how organizational structure influences workplace culture and employee behavior. Drawing on perspectives from Kanter (1999) and Buhler (2011), the paper surveys key structural types — functional, geographic, open/team-based, and matrix — and analyzes how each orients employees and managers toward different priorities, from efficiency and stability to innovation and market growth. Using examples such as Google, Apple, Pepsi, and FedEx, the paper argues that no single structure is universally superior; instead, the optimal structure depends on a company's strategic objectives, market conditions, and leadership philosophy. The paper concludes that aligning organizational structure with strategic goals is essential for cultivating a culture that motivates desired behaviors at all levels.
- Organizational Structure and Its Influence on Culture: How structure shapes culture and employee orientation
- Types of Organizational Structures: Functional, geographic, and open team structures explained
- No Universal Best Structure: Why no single structure suits all companies
- Matching Structure to Strategic Objectives: Aligning structure with efficiency, innovation, or market goals
- Conclusion: Structure must align with strategic and cultural priorities
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds abstract structural concepts in concrete, recognizable company examples — Google, Apple, Pepsi, and FedEx — making theoretical claims immediately relatable and testable.
- It maintains a consistent analytical thread: each structural type is evaluated against the culture and behaviors it produces, keeping the argument focused and cumulative.
- The paper demonstrates critical engagement with its sources by questioning whether organizational structure meaningfully affects front-line employees, rather than simply summarizing the cited authors.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses comparative analysis across organizational types and industries to build a contingency argument — that structural effectiveness is situational, not absolute. This technique allows the writer to synthesize multiple frameworks (functional, geographic, matrix, open) under one unifying claim without overgeneralizing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the relationship between structure and culture, citing Kanter and Buhler, before critically questioning the limits of that relationship at lower organizational levels. It then catalogs the major structural types and their cultural implications. A second major section argues against universal best practices, using industry contrasts (Google vs. Apple's suppliers, Pepsi's matrix needs) to illustrate why structure must match strategy. The paper closes with a brief synthesis reinforcing the importance of structural alignment with organizational goals.
Organizational Structure and Its Influence on Culture
An organization's structure affects many aspects of the organization. Kanter (1999) notes that people within an organization tend to operate in line with the messages they are receiving, so structural elements do affect culture and vice versa. An organizational structure reflects how the people at the top of the organization view how the organization works. For example, if a company has few new products, it might operate with a geographic structure, which would encourage employees to adopt a transactional mindset and build stability within a tightly defined context. However, if products form the basis of the organizational culture, people working on a specific product may become more oriented toward growing that product. The orientation of the company differs, and so the way people within the company see themselves and their roles will also differ. Buhler (2011) further notes that when an organization changes its structure, managers are required to "enhance their strategic orientation."
Below the organizational structure level, there are different ways to affect culture and behavior. Kanter (1999) notes that incentives provide specific behavioral orientations and can therefore be used to drive change within the organization. However, one must question whether either author makes a fully compelling case that organizational structure meaningfully affects front-line employees whose daily activities are not governed by management structures several layers above them. Kanter discusses fostering innovation, goal-setting, and related topics, but all of these operate well below the organizational structure level. Managers can affect both behavior and culture, but they do so at a more direct level. Organizational structure changes may reflect shifts in executive priorities and how resources are deployed at higher levels, but their connection to lower-level activities remains tenuous. That said, organizational culture can be affected by structural changes — FedEx sought to accomplish exactly this when it reorganized Kinko's into FedEx Office.
References
Buhler, P. (2011). Changing organizational structures and their impact on managers. Supervision, 72(2), 24.
Kurtzman, J. (1999). An interview with Rosabeth Moss Kanter. Strategy & Business. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from http://www.strategy-business.com/article/19494?gko=df950
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.