Work Roles and Relationships

Traditionally, an organisation is a structure built out of jobs. On an organisation chart, each box represents a job and the chart shows the relationships between jobs - particularly reporting relationships. The boxes are at different levels and there is a clear hierarchy. Jobs are clustered together into functions, such as marketing, finance, and operations. As shown in the example below, the organisation chart shows the formal organisation.

Structure and organisation

There is no best format for organisation charts. Each organisation develops an approach that suits its requirements. For example, some prefer to include the names of position holders on charts. Others choose not to.

Typically, a manager looks after each function and lower level managers look after groups within functions. These groupings can be functional or regional. There is a strong vertical orientation in structure and relationships. You can see some of these characteristics in the chart above.

The components of formally structured organisations derive from strategy. The elements of the formal structure are:

• plans
• tasks and task categories (that is, job types, such as accounting or marketing)
• hierarchies
• systems, such as information systems, resource procurement systems, and product or service delivery systems.

In this type of formal structure, the role (or purpose) of each job is usually specified in a job description. This is a brief description of why the job exists, and if necessary, an indication of the main duties or outputs of the job. For example, in the chart, Cathy Smith's role as chief accountant might be to ensure that the company's financial management systems operate efficiently and effectively. Job descriptions can also specify reporting relationships.

One difficulty with job descriptions is that they can be difficult to change. Employees may strongly resist any attempt to change their role - even to the point of taking industrial action.

Today, the fixed job description is giving way to a more flexible approach. Increasingly, people are hired and assigned to specific projects. The focus of the project may change over time, and people's tasks and responsibilities change with it. Eventually, they are assigned to another project. People do what's needed rather than carry out the duties and tasks that are prescribed in a job description. This is the 'post-job organisation.'

The post-job organisation

There are evolutionary stages on the way to the post-job organisation. For example, a firm might choose to update its job descriptions every year. Typically, each description would stem directly from the annual business plan. As the plan changed, so would the job descriptions.

Horizontal work flows

As you have seen, most organisations are managed vertically. Increasingly, people are recognising that work flows through organisations horizontally. In the emerging post-job organisation, formal reporting relationships (as in the organisation chart above) may well decline in significance. Similarly, functional groupings may also be less influential.

Instead, people may be more concerned with working (or workflow) relationships - with colleagues who provide inputs and colleagues who receive outputs. These relationships may be with people in different functions. There may not be a traditional reporting relationship at all. Who the 'boss' is may be unclear. The boss may be a project leader or a 'process owner' in a different part of the organisation. You can see some of the features of this arrangement in the chart below.

Some of the characteristics of horizontal (or process-oriented) organisations are:

• roles may not be precisely defined in job descriptions
• process teams may have considerable autonomy
• there may be less need for a 'boss' and a formal reporting relationship.

Consequently, there may be fewer levels of management. Teams, rather than individual jobs, may be the primary structural unit.

Added-value

The horizontal organisation is important for the type of job or work done in the organisation, because it emphasises the need for people to add value to their inputs. The outputs people produce are worth more than the inputs they receive. Other ways to understand this concept are that outputs are more highly developed than inputs, that quality is enhanced, or that utility is enhanced.

A good example of this is McDonald's. Each employee at McDonald's adds something of value to the product. Customers receive exactly what they want, and very few customers suggest they have not received value for money. It's a simple process, but it works well.

Of course, adding value is not always this simple. The process can be complex and can require high-level knowledge and skills.

Sometimes there may be debate about whether value is actually added. The proposer of a change may argue that the value of their suggestion is obvious. Colleagues may feel it adds nothing but cost. Crucial questions are:

• Does this feature provide a benefit for the customer?
• Does it provide something the customer will value?