UPI Study › Courses › Principles of Management › Free lessons › Lesson 7.5 Free with a free account
Traditional Structures: Simple, Functional, and Divisional Forms
Principles of Management · Chapter 7: Designing the OrganizationSection 7.5 · lesson 37 of 11712 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Principles of Management.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Principles of Management
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: When to Go Divisional: Scaling Through Separation →← How Design Shapes Behavior Inside OrganizationsNext lesson: When to Go Divisional: Scaling Through Separation →
In this lesson
What each form optimizes, and what it sacrifices.
- Describe the simple, functional and divisional structures
- Explain what each form optimizes and what it gives up
- Trace a decision's path under each form
- Select a traditional structure for a described organization
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,583 words). Read along, or search it.
Designing the Organization
Traditional Structures: Simple, Functional, and Divisional
Most organizations, at some point, take one of three traditional shapes. This section works through all three: simple, functional, and divisional. For each, we'll ask the same two questions. What does it optimize, and what does it sacrifice? We'll look closely at the functional structure's characteristic failure as an organization grows. We'll trace one decision through two different charts, to make the difference concrete. And we'll finish with how to choose a form, and how to read an organization chart.
The Simple Structure
Built Around One Person
Start with the simple structure. It has low specialization, a wide span of control, and minimal formalization. And authority is concentrated in one person. Typically it's a small organization built directly around its founder. Most or all significant decisions run through that one individual. The simple structure is fast, flexible, and inexpensive to run. There are few layers to slow a decision down, and little formal process to maintain. And there's no duplicated management overhead. Its limits are just as direct. The organization's capacity is bounded by the founder's capacity, because everything significant depends on one person's time and attention. And its risk is concentrated in one person. The founder's absence, error, or departure threatens the whole organization, rather than being absorbed by a broader structure.
The Functional Structure
Grouping People by Common Expertise
The functional structure groups people by common expertise. All engineering together, all sales together, all finance together. It produces three clear advantages. The first is depth of skill. Specialists working beside other specialists sharpen and reinforce each other's expertise. The second is economies of scale. Each function can be sized and equipped once, for the whole organization, rather than duplicated piecemeal. The third is clear career paths. A person can see a legible sequence of advancement within her own specialty. What it sacrifices is equally clear. It sacrifices cross-functional coordination, because the structure groups people away from the other functions their work must connect with. It sacrifices speed of response. A decision needing more than one function's input has no home inside any single group. And it sacrifices general management development. A career spent entirely inside one function builds deep specialist skill, not the broad judgment general management eventually requires.
Failure at Scale
Every Cross-Functional Call Goes to the Top
The functional structure has a characteristic failure as an organization grows. It's specific, and predictable. Below the very top, no one has authority spanning more than one function. So every cross-functional decision escalates to the one person accountable for the whole organization. Typically that's the chief executive, or whoever sits above every functional head. Now add growth. As the organization grows, the volume of decisions needing more than one function's input grows with it. And that single point of accountability becomes a bottleneck. Notice what's causing it. It isn't any personal failing in the person at the top. It's the structure itself, routing an ever-increasing volume of cross-functional decisions through exactly one person.
The Divisional Structure
Self-Contained Units, Each Owning a Result
The divisional structure groups work by product, geography, customer, or market. Those are the same four bases of departmentalization covered in Subchapter three point seven. Each division contains the functions it needs to operate largely on its own, instead of sharing central functions. That produces three gains. Accountability for whole outcomes. A division head owns a complete result, not one function's contribution to a result no one owns. Responsiveness. A division can act on its own, without routing cross-functional decisions to the top. And general management development. Running a division, even a small one, demands exactly the broad judgment the functional structure struggles to build. The sacrifices are real too. Economies of scale are lost, because each division duplicates functions the organization might have run once, more efficiently. And divisions can diverge. A division with substantial autonomy can drift toward its own local priorities. The center may not notice that drift quickly.
The Trade-Off
Duplication Cost Against Coordination Gain
The divisional trade-off can be stated very simply. It's duplication cost against coordination gain. A divisional structure pays for better coordination and accountability inside each division. And it pays by giving up the scale efficiency a single, shared function could have provided. The duplication cost is every function the organization could have run once, now run in every division. The coordination gain is cross-functional decisions resolved inside a division, with one head owning the result. Neither side of this trade is free. So which side should an organization accept? It depends on how much its diversity of products, markets, or customers actually demands the coordination a divisional structure buys. If that diversity is modest, the duplication is mostly cost.
Figure 7.5.1
The Same Decision, Drawn Both Ways
Figure seven point five point one draws one fictional company, Harborline Manufacturing, in two ways. On the left, it's a functional structure. A chief executive sits above engineering, marketing, and finance. A product decision needs both engineering and marketing. Neither head has authority over the other's function, so the decision travels up to the chief executive. It has nowhere else to resolve. On the right, the same company is drawn as a divisional structure. Each division contains its own engineering and marketing. So the identical kind of product decision is resolved entirely inside the division that owns that product. It never needs to reach the top at all. The difference to notice is path length.
Hybrid Arrangements
What Most Large Organizations Actually Run
In practice, most large organizations don't adopt either pure form completely. They run hybrid arrangements, with some functions organized divisionally and others kept central. Here's a typical example. A company might run separate, fully staffed engineering and sales functions inside each of its divisions. At the same time, it keeps finance, legal, and human resources centralized across the whole organization. This is really Subchapter seven point two's decision-mapping exercise, applied to whole functions instead of individual decisions. Each function is placed divisionally or centrally by the same underlying logic. Where does its relevant information sit? How much consistency does it require? And what are its real capability and scale needs?
Choosing a Form
Size, Diversity and Environment
So which traditional form fits best? It depends on three things: an organization's size, the diversity of what it offers, and the environment it operates in. That's the same contingency logic Subchapter five point five developed in full. A small, single-product organization in a stable environment is typically well served by a simple or functional structure. It doesn't have the scale to make coordination the dominant problem. And it doesn't have the diversity that a divisional structure exists to manage. A large organization spanning several distinct products or markets is different. Especially in a changing environment, it more often needs the coordination and accountability a divisional structure provides. That holds even at the cost of duplicated functions. There's no universally best form. There's a best fit for a given situation.
Table 7.5.1
The 3 Forms Compared
Table seven point five point one compares the three forms on five criteria. On coordination, the simple form is high, but bounded by one person's capacity. The functional form is low across functions, and high within each one. The divisional form is high within each division. On economies of scale, the simple form is low, since no function is large enough to scale. The functional form is high within each function. The divisional form is lower, because functions are duplicated. On accountability, the simple form is very high, since one person owns everything. The functional form is diffuse, with no one below the top owning whole outcomes. Each division owns a whole outcome. On responsiveness, the simple form is very high while small, and the functional form is low on cross-functional issues. Divisions are highly responsive, because they act without escalating. On manager development, both the simple and functional forms are low. Only the divisional form scores high, because running a division builds broad judgment.
Using the Framework
Trace the Decision, Then Read the Chart
Here's the practical test for choosing among these forms. Draw where a described decision would actually be made under each form. Then count how many people, and how many reporting layers, it touches. A decision that touches only one function resolves identically under all three forms. A decision that genuinely spans functions is exactly where the forms diverge. Tracing its path, as the figure did, makes the difference concrete rather than abstract. A related skill is reading an organization chart. A chart reveals a lot about stated priorities. It shows the basis for dividing work, where formal authority sits, and how many layers there are. What it doesn't show matters just as much. It doesn't show the informal networks and invisible components from Subchapter six point two. It doesn't show where decisions actually get made, as opposed to where the chart implies they should be. And it doesn't show the behavioral effects from Subchapter seven point four, which depend on how a structure is lived, not drawn.
Case Vignette
Every Cross-Functional Call Lands on One Desk
Here is a composite case, constructed for instruction. Harborline Manufacturing ran a functional structure through its first decade of growth. Engineering, marketing, and finance each had a department head, and all three heads reported directly to the chief executive, Sana. As the product line expanded, more and more decisions needed input from more than one function at once. A new feature's engineering feasibility had to be weighed against its marketing timeline. A pricing change had to be weighed against its cost impact. None of the three department heads had authority beyond her own function. So each of those decisions was escalated to Sana. Her calendar filled with cross-functional questions that, one at a time, were often fairly routine. Sana had not become a worse or slower decision-maker. The functional structure had produced exactly the bottleneck this section describes. It routed a growing share of decisions through the one point on the chart where cross-functional authority existed.
About Principles of Management at UPI Study
Principles of Management (Business 101) is a self-paced online course of 117 video lessons in 17 chapters, from the classical schools and the four management functions to leadership, motivation, change, human resources, strategy and ethics. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Principles of Management with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Principles of Management carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Traditional Structures: Simple, Functional, and Divisional Forms
What is a simple organizational structure?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of a functional structure?
Why does a functional structure create bottlenecks as a company grows?
How do you choose between a simple, functional, and divisional structure?
About the Principles of Management course
How many college credits is Principles of Management?
How much does Principles of Management cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Principles of Management take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Principles of Management.
117 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →