Organization Structure Benson Metal Company

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Organization Structure
Reporting Relationships
Conclusion
References

Introduction

My colleague Carswell has raised a valid point of view regarding the problems we now face. I have only worked in this company for the past four years as an I/O consultant, and frankly, I have witnessed a lot of changes, not all of them in the positive direction. It is clearly evident that Benson Metal Company is under crises.

It is also clear that the main cause of this crisis has not been investigated and it is due to this that the situation has escalated this much. It is sad that at this point in time, when the industry is harsh and struggling, that we are about to lose one of our most dedicated customers. As I see it, the main problem lies in our organization structure and conflicting lines of authority.

Organization Structure

As some of you know, a companys organization structure defines the formal reporting relationships in the company including the level of power welded by the supervisors and the amount of levels within the organization (Daft, 2009).

The organization structure also identifies the grouping together of individuals into departments within the organization as well as the design of systems that will guarantee effective coordination and communication between different departments (Baligh, 2006). Clearly, the organization structure of Benson Metal Company has failed to meet its intended purpose.

The organization structure specifies three main things that include: required work activities, the reporting relationships and departmental groupings. The company main problem lays in reporting relationships while the other two factors are quite stable.

Reporting Relationships

The biggest problem in the company is and has always been reporting relationships or more specifically, the chain of command. The chain of command denotes the uninterrupted lines of authority that links everyone in the company and indicates who reports to whom (Jones, 2010). Most of the individual holding places of power within the company are finding it hard to carry out their tasks.

This may be attributed to people being designated jobs that they are unfamiliar with and have no skills in. The assistant to the president position is occupied with an individual who does not have the correct skills or experiences required for running the company or overseeing the welfare of our employees.

Our vice president has been unable to effectively lay out the correct lines of authority and has poor management skills. Generally, a body cannot function without a head and that is one of the main problems.

Reporting relationships also involves setting up lines of authority important to ensure effective coordination between the departments. Honestly, Ramsey Stockwell has failed in this regard. Time and time again, Mr. Stockwell has been antagonistic in our efforts to improve communication and coordination.

He has not designed effective reporting relationships within his own department and even though those who serve beneath him are loyal, his attitudes are affecting the general attitude of his department regarding the company. Mr. Stockwell has proved to be very effective in ensuring that his department is up and running.

However, his job does not end there and involves improving morale in his department, developing a schedule for his workers, laying out the correct reporting relationship within his department to avoid conflicts and respecting the general chain of command in the company.

Mr. Stockwell has taken over the department and seeks to carry out all the jobs in his company. This would be well and good if he could actually deliver however as it can be seen, he is unable to deliver the required results and his actions have only led to increased confusion in his department as well as others in the company.

The relationship between Mr. Stockwell and the sales department is truly disturbing. Mr. Stockwell should learn that this is not a research facility but a company that needs to sell items in order to gain profits as well as meet its expenses. His antagonism and opposition to provide relevant information to the sales department is making us shortsighted thus losing our competitive advantage.

We have failed to deliver products in time to our most trusted customers and frankly that is unacceptable. Information sharing within the department is of outmost importance but Mr. Stockwell has set up a bureaucratic system that most members within his organization seldom know what is required of them or the progress they are making.

Conclusion

Looking at the above problems, we can conclude that several things have to change. First of all, the required work activities should be specified especially considering the strain the production of the aerospace materials has on the company. Secondly, communication both within the departments and across different departments has to be improved.

Communication and coordination between the departments can be improved in several ways. The first method is through improving teamwork between the two departments i.e. production and sales. Members of the two departments should freely intermix and be involved in the actual process involved in both departments.

Another method is by setting up an organization structure based on divisional grouping. Divisional grouping involves organizing employees according to whatever products the company produces (Fow, 2007).

Members of both the sales team and the production team should be grouped together under one department ensuring information flow between the in every stop of material production. I thank you for your time and hope we can resolve these issues in the shortest time possible.

References

Baligh, H. (2006). Organization Structures: Theory and Design, Analysis and Prescription. New York: Springer Science + Media Inc.

Daft, R. (2009). Organization Theory and Design. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning

Fow, W. (2007). Managing Organizational Behavior. Cape Town: Junta & Co.

Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Click Here To Order Now!