Organisational Structure

The  structure  of  an  organisation  affects  either  positively  or  negatively  on  the  learning  in   the   organisation.   Organisational   structure   is   therefore   an   internal   determinant   of   organisational   learning   (Hao   et   al   2012;   Kanten   et   al   2015;   Martinez-­‐Leon   and   Martinez-­‐Garcia   2011).   The   association   between   organisational   structure   and  

organisational   learning   has   long   been   established   and   scholars   have   found   structural   characteristics   that   affect   organisational   learning.   Curado   (2006)   argues   that   a   flat,   decentralised   organisational   structure   triggers   organisational   learning   as   it   supports   the  free  flow  of  new  ideas.  This  form  of  structure  permits  autonomy  and  the  authority  to   make   decisions,   thereby   enables   learning   and   innovations   by   producing   more   productive,   committed   and   satisfied   workforce.   The   level   of   autonomy   and   authority   exercise  by  employees  reflects  the  level  of  empowerment  and  the  nature  of  the  existing   structure  (Martins  and  Terblanche,  2003).  Dauber  et  al  (2012:  7)  defines  structures  “as   the   manifestation   of   strategic   orientations   and   regulate   information   flows,   decision   making,  and  patterns  of  behaviour,  that  is  internal  allocation  of  tasks,  decisions,  rules,  and   procedures  for  appraisal  and  reward,  selected  for  the  best  pursuit  of…strategy”.  While  to   Martinez-­‐Leon   and   Martinez-­‐Garcia   (2011:543)   organisational   structure   reflects   the   way   an   organisation   distributes   information   and   knowledge   within   its   setting,   which   affects   the   efficiency   of   their   utilization.   Consequently,   it   substantially   influences   the   coordination  and  distribution  of  organisational  resources,  communication  patterns,  and   the   interaction   between   employees.   Therefore,   the   configuration   of   organisational   structure   facilitates   or   destructs   an   organisation’s   capacity   to   learn,   change   and   innovate.   Put   differently,   organisational   structure   mirrors   the   formal   scheme   of   authority,   decision-­‐making,   information   and   learning   flow   process/   systems,   procedures,   relationships   and   communication   (Dicle   and   Okan,   2015).   Following   this   line  of  thinking,  this  study  explains  organisational  structure  as  the  configuration  of  an   organisation   in   terms   of   the   command   of   authority,   relationship,   communication   and   information   flow   that   shapes   the   learning   activities   of   the   organisation.   As   Martinez-­‐ Leon   and   Martinez-­‐Garcia   (2011)   argue,   the   culture   of   an   organisation   affects   its   learning-­‐enabling  structure.    

A   culture   that   promotes   flexibility,   autonomy,   and   teamwork   encourages   an   organic-­‐ type  structure,  whereas   one,  which  is  characterised  by  rigidity,  control,  predictability,   stability   and   order,   promotes   a   hierarchical   structure   and   hampers   organisational   learning   and   innovation   (Martins   and   Terblanche   2003).   Writers   like   Darvish   and   Norozi   (2011)   and   Ravangard   et   al   (2014)   argue   that   employee   autonomy,   empowerment,  and  participation  in  decision  making  stimulate  organisational  learning   as   organisational   members   are   given   the   space   and   opportunity   to   act   independently  

and   achieve   their   goals.   Consequently,   management   should   not   impose   controls   but   rather  encourage  their  workforce  to  be  initiative  by  empowering  them  and  removing  all   barriers  to  learning  (Islam  et  al  2014).  Formalisation  and  routine  explains  the  extent  to   which   an   organisation’s   structure   captures   mechanistic   elements   such   as   rules,   procedures,   job   functions,   and   formalised   communications   (Dicle   and   Okan,   2015).   Curado   (2006)   contributes   that   routines,   standardised,   and   written   rules   improve   organisational  efficiency,  which  can  support  exploitative  form  of  learning.  But  when  an   organisation  is  less  routinized,  it  can  support  more  explorative  learning.  However,  Lavie   et  al  (2010)  argue  that  informal  mechanisms  may  affect  explorative  activities  negatively   because   the   structure   may   ineffectively   integrate   learning   and   innovation   within   the   organisation.  Likewise,  Su  and  McNamara  (2012)  find  the  argument  that  formalisation   stands   as   barrier   to   explorative   activities   absurd,   believing   formalisation   does   not   necessarily  hinder  exploration  and  learning.  Study  by  Miner  et  al  (2008)  supports  the   notion   that   routines   hardly   prevent   learning.   On   the   contrary,   Bloodgood   (2009)   and   Cohendet  and  Llerena  (2001)  establish  the  certainty  that  formalisation  acts  as  a  barrier   to  organisational  learning.  Certainly,  an  organisation’s  exhibition  of  semi-­‐formalisation   could   bring   about   openness,   flexibility   which   enables   new   ideas   and   behaviours,   and   high   levels   of   formalisation,   as   found   in   mechanistic-­‐type   structures   limits   learning   potentials,  because  the  high  degree  of  specialisation,  formalisation,  standardisation,  and   centralisation  all  discourage  the  quest  for  new  knowledge.  This  however,  identifies  the   inconsistency  in  findings  on  the  relationship  between  formalisation  and  organisational   learning  in  the  literature.    

Kanten   et   al   (2015)   emphasised   the   importance   of   good   communication   channels   for   effective   organisational   learning,   and   having   a   fluid   decision   making   process   enables   learning   in   organisations.   Dimovski   and   Skerlavaj   (2004)   mentioned   that   a   structure   that   supports   and   encourages   effective   connections   and   knowledge   dissemination   between   organisational   arms   enhances   research   and   the   access   to   new   information,   thereby   enabling   organisational   learning.   Similarly,   Day   (1995)   pointed   that   the   connection   between   related   and   unrelated   parties   increases   the   opportunities   for   individual  learning,  thus  updating  their  exiting  knowledge  and  that  of  the  organisation.   Choe   (2004)   also   found   that   relating   with   individuals   or   other   sections   fosters   knowledge  exchange  and  thus,  enables  organisational  learning.  Hatala  and  Lutta  (2009)  

argue   that   as   organic   or   informal   structures   are   characterised   by   fewer   formalised   strands  than  mechanistic  or  formal  structures,  they  motivate  employees  to  experiment   and  explore.  To  this  end,  Informal  structures  connect  people  and  other  organisational   makeup  effectively,  thus  opening  channels  for  communication  and  allowing  for  informal   means  of  knowledge  dissemination.  When  people  easily  get  connected  with  others,  they   tend  to  be  exposed  to  abrupt  knowledge  and  can  engage  in  explorative  activities  (Lavie   et  al  2010).  Cross-­‐functional  teams  are  identified  as  enablers  of  organisational  learning   because  they  encourage  diversity.  Organisational  learning  can  be  affected  by  the  level  of   diversity  in  members’  backgrounds  and  experience  (Argote,  1999:2012).  Organisations   whose   members   possess   diverse   knowledge   or   information   due   to   variations   in   their   backgrounds  or  training  can  support  the  learning  process  by  enabling  an  organisation   to  make  novel  associations  and  links.  Diversity  can  be  enhanced  by  contact  with  both   internal  and  external  influences.  In  this  respect,  Nevis  et  al  (1995)  stated  that  the  ability   of   team   members   to   relate   with   the   external   world   is   important   for   accessing   new   knowledge  and  learning.    Tyre  and  Von  Hippel  (1997)  proposed  that  employees  should   move  repeatedly  among  several  physical  settings  (shuffle  across  departments),  because   different   settings   provide   distinct   and   unique   opportunities   for   learning.   Exchange   between  functions  and  responsibilities  (job  rotation)  such  as  marketing  and  production   is   another   facilitator   of   learning   in   organisations.   Rotation   aids   the   understanding   of   members   of   an   organisation   on   the   business   activities   from   a   multiplicity   of   perspectives.    

Teams   are   valuable   in   organisations,   because   they   enable   learning   and   innovative   deliberation;  and  an  organisational  structure  that  stimulates  the  development  of  work   teams   is   important.   Edmondson   (2002)   suggest   a   positive   association   exist   between   team  composition,  size  and  organisational  learning.    Small  teams  are  argued  to  be  more   effective   for   learning   as   large   teams   destabilize   effective   communication   and   group   efforts   (Martins   and   Terblanche,   2003).     Indeed,   Argote   (2012)   posits   that   large   and   uncommitted  teams  are  dysfunctional,  and  batter  the  team  effectiveness  due  to  ‘social   loafing’.  However,  Dayaram  and  Fung  (2014)  believe  that  extensively  small  teams  may   not   generate   sufficiently   diverse   ideas   and   hence,   not   support   learning.   Moreover,   evidence  suggests  that  when  team  members  stay  together  for  a  long  period  of  time,  the   effectiveness   of   communication   declines   because   the   team   become   detached   from  

critical   evaluation   of   information   and   knowledge   (Argote,   2012).   It   is   however   reasonable   to   suggest   that   temporal   and   short-­‐termed   teams   are   more   effective,   although  long  termed  teams  could  offer  unique  opportunities  and  benefits  for  learning.   According  to  social  theory  of  learning,  Learning  involves  a  shared  process  which  occurs   through   observing,   commune   working   (working   together)   and   being   part   of   a   larger   group,   which   includes   members   of   varying   levels   of   experience,   able   to   stimulate   one   another’s  development  (Easterby-­‐Smith  and  Araujo  1999;  Gherardi  et  al  1998).  In  this   view,  individuals  only  learn  from  competent  people  but  with  the  emphasis  on  being  part   of  a  larger  system.        

Organisational   structure   has   a   direct   effect   on   employee   behaviour.   As   earlier   noted,   teams   are   valuable,   and   an   organisational   structure   that   fosters   team   behaviour   is   supportive  of  organisational  learning,  since  teamwork  encourages  openness  to  analysis   of  new  ideas  and  engagement  in  learning  and  innovative  activities  (Babnik  et  al  2014;   Van  Der  Vegt  and  Bunderson  2005).  Also  organisational  behaviour  and  organisational   structure   are   directly   linked;   structure   builds   the   frame   of   inference   upon   which   organisational   operations   are   managed   and   it   guides   the   behaviour   of   organisational   members,   which   translates   to   certain   “patterns   of   behaviour”   supported   by   the   structure  of  the  organisation  (Dauber  et  al,  2011:7).  In  reverse,  structures  are  dynamic   and   can   change   over   time   as   result   of   new   organisational   conditions,   resulting   in   the   need   to   align   and   modify   organisational   behaviour   of   employees   so   that   they   could   access   and   acquire   relevant   and   varied   knowledge   that   would   aid   in   tackling   fluctuations,   problems   and   diverse   situations.   Therefore,   structure   is   never   an   organisational   static   condition,   it   changes   based   on   the   differing   environmental   pressures   in   need   of   respond   by   developing   appropriate   structures,   practices   and   policies  (Martinez-­‐Leon  and  Martinez-­‐Garcia,  2011).