UNIT 7 READING 1.docx

UNIT 7 READING 1Understanding the historical context from which some of todays organizational structures have developed helps to explain why some structures are the way they are.了解今天的已经发展的某些组织结构的历史背景有助于解释为什么他们是现在这个样子。Management thought during this period was influenced by Webers ideas of bureaucracy, where power is ascribed to positions rather than to the individuals holding those positions. It also was influenced by Taylors scientific management, or the one best way to accomplish a task using scientifically-determined studies of time and motion. Also influential were Fayols ideas of invoking unity within the chain-of-command, authority, discipline, task specialization, and other aspects of organizational power and job separation. This created the context for vertically-structured organizations characterized by distinct job classifications and top-down authority structures, or what became known as the traditional or classical organizational structure. This classical view, or bureaucratic structure, of organizations was the dominant pattern as small organizations grew increasingly larger during the economic boom that occurred from the 1900s until the Great Depression of the 1930s. 在此期间，管理思想受到韦伯的官僚思想的影响，认为权力来源于职位，而不是持有这些职位的人。也受到泰勒的科学管理思想的影响，或在确定的时间完成确定的研究任务的“最佳方法”。此外有影响力的是法约尔的内部控制，权威，纪律，工作专业化统一，组织能力和岗位分离的思想。这创造了上下文具有明显职业分类和自上而下的权力结构的垂直组织结构，或者被称为传统或古典的组织结构是什么垂直构造组织的背景。这家经典视图，或官僚结构，这种组织形式从1900年直到发生上世纪30年代的大萧条时期作为主导形式迅速发展成长。The Great Depression temporarily stifled U.S. economic growth, but organizations that survived emerged with their vertically-oriented, bureaucratic structures intact as public attention shifted to World War II. Postwar rebuilding reignited economic growth. Along with increasing growth, however, came increasing complexity. Problems in U.S. business structures became apparent and new ideas began to appear. Studies of employee motivation raised questions about the traditional model. The one best way to do a job gradually disappeared as the dominant logic. It was replaced by concerns that traditional organizational structures might prevent, rather than help, promote creativity and innovationboth of which were necessary as the century wore on and pressures to competegloballymounted.大萧条暂时抑制了美国经济增长，但幸存下来的组织出现了他们的垂直化，官僚结构在公众注意中直到第二次世界大战才发证转变。战后重建重燃经济增长。随着越来越多的增长而日益复杂。在美国的经济结构问题变得显著并出现新的问题。员工激励的研究提出了关于传统模式的问题。作为主导逻辑做的一项工作“最好的方法”逐渐消失。取而代之的是传统的组织结构可能会阻止，而不是帮助，促进创新和改革在世纪的推移和全球竞争的压力之下这两者并且是必要的。Researchers generally identify four basic decisions that managers have to make as they develop an organizational structure, although they may not be explicitly aware of these decisions. First, the organizations work must be divided into specific jobs. This is referred to as the division of labor. Second, unless the organization is very small, the jobs must be grouped in some way, which is called departmentalization. Third, the number of people and jobs that are to be grouped together must be decided. This is related to the number of people that are to be managed by one person, or the span of controlthe number of employees reporting to a single manager. Fourth, the way decision-making authority is to be distributed must be determined.研究人员通常认为管理者开发组织结构需要四个基本的决定，虽然他们可能没有明确意识到这些决定。首先，组织工作必须分为具体的工作。这被称为劳动分工。第二，除非该组织是非常小的，该作业必须以某种方式组合起来，这就是所谓部门化。第三，人数与匹配在一起的工作必须确定。这关系到由一个人管理的员工的数量，或控制跨度想一个管理者汇报的雇员数量。第四，决策权分布的方式必须确定。In making each of these design decisions, a range of choices are possible. In traditional bureaucratic structures, there is a tendency to increase task specialization as the organization grows larger. In grouping jobs into departments, the manager must decide the basis on which to group them. The most common basis, at least until the last few decades, was by function. Many organizations group jobs in various ways in different parts of the organization, but the basis that is used at the highest level plays a fundamental role in shaping the organization. There are four commonly used bases.在做这些设计决策之时，一系列的选择都是可能的。在传统的官僚结构中，有当组织变大就增加的任务专业的趋势。在分组作业到部门，管理者必须确定在什么样的基础上分给他们组。最常见的基础上，至少在过去的几十年中，是功能。许多集体工作具有不同的方式或者在组织的不同部门，但其基础都在塑造组织之中是最高水平地扮演基础角色。有四种常用的基础。Functional departmentalization 职能部门化Geographic departmentalization 地理部门化Product departmentalization 产品部门化Customer / market departmentalization 客户/市场部门化Some organizations find that none of the afore-mentioned structures meet their needs. One approach that attempts to overcome the inadequacies is the matrix structure, which is the combination of two or more different structures. Functional departmentalization commonly is combined with product groups on a project basis. One advantage of a matrix structure is that it facilitates the use of highly specialized staff and equipment. Rather than duplicating functions as would be done in a simple product department structure, resources are shared as needed. In some cases, highly specialized staff may divide their time among more than one project. In addition, maintaining functional departments promotes functional expertise, while at the same time working in project groups with experts from other functions fosters cross-fertilization of ideas. The disadvantages of a matrix organization arise from the dual reporting structure. The organizations top management must take particular care to establish proper procedures for the development of projects and to keep communication channels clear so that potential conflicts do not arise and hinder organizational functioning. In theory at least, top management is responsible for arbitrating such conflicts, but in practice power struggles between the functional and product manager can prevent successful implementation of matrix structural arrangements. Besides the product/function matrix, other bases can be related in a matrix. Large multinational corporations that use a matrix structure most commonly combine product groups with geographic units. Product managers have global responsibility for the development, manufacturing, and distribution of their own product or service line, while managers of geographic regions have responsibility for the success of the business in their regions.一些组织发现，前面提及的结构，没有一个满足他们的需求。有一种机构试图克服这种困难的是矩阵结构，这是两种或多种不同结构的组合。职能部门化通常是一个项目的基础上产品组相结合。矩阵结构的一个优点是，它便于使用高度专业化的工作人员和设备。而不是在一个简单的产品部门中复制功能，需要的资源是共享的。在一些情况下，高度专业化的人员可以在多个项目中划分时间。此外，维护职能部门推广的专业技能，同时，项目组正与其他职能专家培育的思想相互交流。矩阵型组织的缺点在双报告结构中出现。该组织的最高管理者必须特别小心，建立对项目的开发适当的程序，并保持沟通渠道的畅通以便潜在的冲突不会发生，阻碍组织的运作。至少在理论上，高层管理人员负责仲裁这样的冲突，但在实践中的功能和产品经理之间的权力斗争可能阻止成功实施矩阵结构安排。除了产品/函数矩阵，其它方法可以和矩阵相关。使用矩阵结构的大型跨国公司通常将产品，地理单元结合起来。产品经理必须为发展，生产，和产品或服务线的全球分布承担责任，而各个地理区域的管理者对企业在其地区的成功承担责任。As corporations become very large they often restructure as a means of revitalizing the organization. Growth of a business often is accompanied by a growth in bureaucracy, as positions are created to facilitate developing needs or opportunities. Continued changes in the organization or in the external business environment may make this bureaucracy a hindrance rather than a help, not simply because of the size or complexity of the organization but also because of a sluggish bureaucratic way of thinking. One approach to encourage new ways of thinking and acting is to reorganize parts of the company into largely autonomous groups, called strategic business units (SBUs). Such units generally are set up like separate companies, with full profit and loss responsibility invested in the top management of the unitoften the president of the unit and/or a senior vice president of the larger corporation. This manager is responsible to the top management of the corporation. This arrangement can be seen as taking any of the aforementioned departmentalization schemes one step further. The SBUs might be based on product lines, geographic markets, or other differentiating factors.随着企业变得非常大，他们往往将重组作为振兴机构的一种手段。一个企业的成长往往伴随着官僚增长，职位的设置是为了发展中的需求和机会。在组织中或外部经营环境的持续变化可能不完全是因为组织的规模和复杂性，但也因为官僚方式的思维迟缓的障碍。鼓励思维和行动的新方法一种方法是重组公司的部分成为更大的部门，即战略业务单位（SBUs）。这样的单位一般都设置的像独立的公司，各个单元的管理者全权负责自己的盈亏责任投资。这位经理负责该公司的高层管理人员。这种结构可以被看作是前述部门化方案更先进的的。战略业务单位可能基于产品线，地域市场或其他差异化的因素。Except for the matrix organization, all the structures described above focus on the vertical organization; that is, who reports to whom, who has responsibility and authority for what parts of the organization, and so on. Such vertical integration is sometimes necessary, but may be a hindrance in rapidly changing environments.除了矩阵结构，上述的所有结构专注于垂直组织；也就是说，谁向谁报告，谁拥有了该组织的哪些部分的责任和权力等。这种垂直整合有时是必要的，但可能是在快速变化的环境中的障碍。Important developments in organizational design in the last few decades of the twentieth century and the early part of the twenty-first century have been attempts to understand the nature of interdependence and improve the functioning of organizations in respect to this factor. One approach is to flatten the organization, to develop the horizontal connections and de-emphasize vertical reporting relationships. At times, this involves simply eliminating layers of middle management. For example, some Japanese companieseven very large manufacturing firmshave only four levels of management: top management, plant management, department management, and section management. Some U.S. companies also have drastically reduced the number of managers as part of a downsizing strategy; not just to reduce salary expense, but also to streamline the organization in order to improve communication and decision making.在过去的二十世纪后几十年和二十一世纪初的组织设计的重要发展一直试图了解对于这个因素相互依存的性质和改善的组织的运作。一种方法是扁平化组织，发展水平连接和强调弱化垂直的报告关系。有时，这涉及到中层管理人员的删减。例如，一些日本企业，甚至是非常大的制造企业，只有四个管理层次：高层管理，工厂管理，部门管理，以及组织管理。一些美国公司也大幅降低管理者的数量作为裁员策略的一部分；而不只是降低工资费用，而且要精简机构，以改善沟通和决策。In a virtual sense, technology is another means of flattening the organization. The use of computer networks and software designed to facilitate group work within an organization can speed communications and decision making. Even more effective is the use of intranets to make company information readily accessible throughout the organization. The rapid rise of such technology has made virtual organizations and boundaryless organizations possible, where managers, technicians, suppliers, distributors, and customers connect digitally rather than physically.在虚拟意义上，技术是实现扁平化组织的另一种手段。利用计算机网络和软件，旨在促进组织内部团队工作可以加快沟通和决策。更有效的是利用内部网，使公司的信息在整个组织易于接近。这种技术的迅速崛起，取得了虚拟组织和无边界组织变为可能，其中管理人员，技术人员，供应商，分销商和客户以数字而不是物理方式联系。A different perspective on the issue of interdependence can be seen by comparing the organic model of organization with the mechanistic model. The traditional, mechanistic structure is characterized as highly complex because of its emphasis on job specialization, highly formalized emphasis on definite procedures and protocols, and centralized authority and accountability. Yet, despite the advantages of coordination that these structures present, they may hinder tasks that are interdependent. In contrast, the organic model of organization is relatively simple because it de-emphasizes job specialization, is relatively informal, and decentralizes authority. Decision-making and goal-setting processes are shared at all levels, and communication ideally flows more freely throughout the organization.在相互依存的问题，不同的角度可以通过组织的有机模式与机理模型的比较中可以看出。传统的，机械结构的特点是非常复杂的，因为它强调工作专业化，正规化的高度重视明确的程序和协议，集中授权和问责制。然而，尽管在这些结构存在时需要协调这些优点，它们可能会妨碍其是相互依存的任务。相反，机构的有机模型相对简单，因为它强调去工作专业化，相对非正式的，分散化的权威。决策和目标设定过程在各级分享和沟通的理想整个组织更自由地流动。A common way that modern business organizations move toward the organic model is by the implementation of various kinds of teams. Some organizations establish self-directed work teams as the basic production group. Examples include production cells in a manufacturing firm or customer service teams in an insurance company. At other organizational levels, cross-functional teams may be established, either on an ad hoc basis (e.g., for problem solving) or on a permanent basis as the regular means of conducting the organizations work. Aid Association for Lutherans is a large insurance organization that has adopted the self-directed work team approach. Part of the impetus toward the organic model is the belief that this kind of structure is more effective for employee motivation. Various studies have suggested that steps such as expanding