Organisational structures

An organisational structure sets out who reports to whom. Two pairs of terms describe it, and they are independent of each other — a business can be any combination of the two.

Chain of command and span of control are linked: for the same number of employees, a shorter chain forces a wider span, and a narrower span forces a longer chain. You cannot have both a short chain and narrow spans in a business of any size — which is why the choice is a genuine trade-off.

Centralised structures give consistency across the whole business, allow senior managers to keep tight control, and suit organisations where every branch should be identical. But decisions are slower, local knowledge is ignored, and junior staff have little responsibility, which can demotivate.

Decentralised structures allow faster decisions suited to local conditions, and give staff responsibility that motivates them and develops future managers. But branches may act inconsistently, and a poor local decision can damage the whole business.

Which is better depends on the business: a chain wanting an identical experience in every outlet centralises; one whose branches serve very different customers decentralises.

The specification asks about the impact of insufficient or excessive communication on efficiency and motivation — both too little and too much.

Insufficient communication. Staff do not know what is expected, so work is done wrongly or twice, deadlines are missed and customers are given inconsistent information — all of which reduce efficiency. Motivation suffers too: people who are not told what is happening feel undervalued and excluded, and rumours fill the gap.

Excessive communication. Time is lost reading messages and sitting in meetings rather than working, which reduces efficiency. Important information gets buried among unimportant information and is missed. Motivation falls because people feel micromanaged and overwhelmed.

The useful conclusion is that more communication is not automatically better — it is the right information reaching the right people at the right time.

Barriers to effective communication:

• Too many levels in the chain of command, so messages are distorted or delayed on the way down. • Using the wrong medium — a complex change explained in a short message, or a simple fact given in a long meeting. • Unclear language, jargon or technical terms the receiver does not understand. • Physical distance between sites, or staff working remotely or on different shifts. • Language differences in an international business. • No opportunity for feedback, so the sender never learns the message was misunderstood. • Noise and distraction, whether literal or in the form of too many competing messages.

The first of these is the one that links back to structure: a long chain of command is itself a barrier to communication, which is one of the strongest arguments for a flatter structure.

The impact of technology on ways of working is named in the specification, in terms of efficiency and remote working.

Efficiency. Digital tools let work be done faster, shared instantly and tracked automatically, and reduce time spent travelling to meetings.

Remote working. Technology allows staff to work from home or anywhere, which cuts the business's premises costs, widens the pool of people it can recruit from beyond commuting distance, and often improves work-life balance and so retention. The drawbacks are real too: communication is harder, new staff are more difficult to train and integrate, some people are more easily distracted at home, and it is harder to build a shared culture.