TABLE OF CONTENT
Title page … … … … … .. … … … i
Certification … … … … … .. … … … ii
Dedication … … … … … .. … … … iii
Acknowledgement … … … … … .. … … iv
Table of content … … … … … .. … … v
Abstract … … … … … .. … … … vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
- Background of the Study… … … … … 1
- Statement of the Problems … … … … … 6
- Objective of the study … … … … … .. 6
- Research Question … … … … … .. 7
- Research Hypothesis … … … … … .. 7
- Significance of the Study … … … … … 8
- Scope of the Study … … … … … .. 9
- Limitation of the Study … … … … … .. 9
- Definition of Terms … … … … … .. 9
References… … … … … .. … … 12
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- Organizational Structure; Concept and Definition 13
- Division of Labour/Task … … … … … 19
- Co-ordination … … … … … .. … 20
- Structural Dimensions … … … … … .. 24
- Function of Organizational structure … … .. 33
- Diagnosing Organizational Systems … … … 35
- Organizational level Diagnosis … … … … 39
- Organizational Analysis … … … … … 51
- Classification of Structure… … … … … 55
- Division of Work… … … … … .. … 57
- Environment… … … … … .. … … 75
- The Concept of Effectiveness and Efficiency In Organizational Structure … … … … … 76
- Major Criteria for Assessing Corporate
Performances … … … … … .. … 80
References … … … … … .. … … 82
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
- Research Design … … … … … .. … 84
- Population, Sample and Sampling Procedure … 84
- Respondents of the Study… … … … … 85
- Instrument of the Study… … … … … .. 85
- Instrument Administration … … … … … 86
References… … … … … .. … … 87
CHAPTER FOUR
- Presentation and Analysis of Data … … … 88
- Research Question (1) … … … … … .. 88
- Research question (2) … … … … … .. 89
- Research Question (3) … … … … … .. 90
- Null hypothesis One (H01) … … … … … 91
- Null Hypothesis Two (H02) … … … … … 92
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Summary … … … … … .. … … 94
- Conclusion … … … … … .. … … 95
- Recommendation … … … … … .. … 98
Bibliography… … … … … .. … … 103
Appendix … … … … … .. … … 107
ABSTRACT
The business environment today has become dynamic that the decision to structure or restructure an organization has become pressingly significant. There has been some serious economic/financial sector reforms in Nigeria due to the fact that performance in the manufacturing and service (banks) firms were not effective and efficient. It is believed that organizational structure can bring about corporate performance. Based on the above fact the need for this study existed. It was necessary to study the organization structure of Nigerian firms, to identify the structural patterns, extent of performance of the characteristics and practices. A sample size of ten firms was selected from the manufacturing/service (banks) firms using the convenient sampling technique. Primary data was generated through the use of questionnaire administered on the management staff and supervisors of the selected firms. Statistical tools employed in organizing and analyzing the data were descriptive and inferential. Descriptive statistical tool include frequency, mean of means and weighted average while inferential techniques was the T-test in testing relationship. Among the findings were, the most frequent type of structure used in Nigerian firms is the financial structure. Performance is more achieved with the functional structure than other structures. Service firms are mostly mechanistic in practice while manufacturing firms are more of organic in nature. Professionalism in organizational structure has a relationship with organizational democracy. The main conclusion of the study is that there is no universal best way to design an organization. Organization structures are influenced by the stages of development in terms of technology, market and volume of product/services among others. The study recommends that organizations must learn to understand the movements in growth, the forces that shape it to bring about creativity, efficiency and overall performance.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The business environment today has become so dynamic that the decision to structure or restructure an organization has become paramount. When certain manifestation become effectually significant, top management contemplate creating a structure to suit the organization’s demands in order to effectively and efficiently achieved its stated objectives.
The manufacturing and banking firms in the business world today need organization structures to direct the levels of authority and responsibilities, information channel and equally establish, primary control units to bring about corporate performances, as they move from one stage to another in terms of growth size, technology, market, product line, merger and acquisition. Tidd (2004:4) state that performance lies in the ability of today’s managers to understand how each of the sub-units such as job, positions, activities and systems develop and the interaction with one another should form an organic whole in any given organization. Scholars in particular and management practitioners in general are beginning to be worried about the situation and there is the need to investigate into the extent of performance of most of the firms in Nigeria.
Previous researchers on organization structure or design like Ottih (2004), Allison (1984), Payne (1981) Mintzbery (1979) Galbraith (197), Cummings and Worley (1992), Duncan (1972) Emery and Trist (1965) Terryberry (1968) Thompson (1967), Burns and stalker (1961), Lawrence and Horsch (1967) Wieck (1969) Woodward (1960), Hicks, Pugh and associates (1969) mills and associates (1980) Aston group (1960) Blam and associates, (1980) Aston groups (1960) and Associates Chandler (1960), Child (1972) and Fubara (1984) but their basic study on structure were structure support mechanism, environment, technology, size, strategy, power and politics and finally the total contingency paradigm
Fubara’s (1984) study was based on state owned enterprises in developing countries. According to him, such firms dominate developing economics and that compels him to inquire into their efficiency and effectiveness. In probing into the strategies decision processed behind the often dismal performance of these firms, Fubara (2004:120) found that decision processed are influenced by power gains from within and outside the firms. These political powers influences the structure and this raises questions such as legitimacy of purpose and objectives of the organization, appointments are not made on merit bases hence they influences corporate decision and thirdly, the power games negatively influence the already misconceived corporate shared values Ottin (2004:73). The pertinent question to ask is, do Nigerian firms have nay structural patterns? If yes, how are they effective and efficient and what are the necessary causes of poor performance.
According to Ottin (2004:23) “organizational structure is a framework of roles, responsibilities, authority and communications relationship that are carefully designed to achieve the performances of an organizational task and achieve its objectives.” That means that any manager must adhere to the following design components such as technology, structure, measurement system, human resources system and culture and not power game, if high performance is to be achieved in our firms. Cummings and Worley (1992:126) on the basis of performance these design components are briefly discussed for clarification.
