ABSTRACT
Positive
interpersonal relationship at work foster a variety of beneficial outcomes for
individual and organization hence, this paper examines the impact of
organisational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organisations.
This study is aimed at examining the need for interpersonal relationship in
workplace. Three (3) research questions were raised and answered. The findings
from the review were; (1) that employee’s demographics and work environment can
in a way affect interpersonal relationship in workplace if not properly
managed. (2) That positive interpersonal relationship in workplace should be
rooted in dispositional differences. (3) That the level of compatibility,
communication and interaction settings between workers goes a long way in
either improving or hindering interpersonal relationship in workplace. Based on
the findings, the following recommendations were made; (1) Management
interventions may be instrumental in promoting friendships at work, by
initiating social activities both inside and outside of the workplace. (2)
Individuals need to get along well with their fellow workers for a positive
ambience in workplaces and also for healthy interpersonal relationship.
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Organizational
structure defines how individuals and groups are organized or how their tasks
are divided and coordinated (Mintzberg, 1983). In this changing world,
companies have had to learn how to formulate and implement their strategies
through projects and organizational structures in order to successfully face
threats and opportunities. However, the management of multiple projects is not
easy due to its complexity. Theories on organizational structures started with
the identification of organizing as a distinct managerial function. They took
formal shapes upon results from studies on organizational structures which
covered many widely different industries. They included studies on the
manufacturing industry by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), administrative
organization by Balu and Schoenherr (1980), investment banks by Eccles and
Crane (1988) and multi-national organization (Ghoshal and Nohoria, 1989). With
the emergence of the systems and contingency theories, the importance of the
organizational structure as a critical component of a formal organization had
finally gained position in research.
In
a research on the organization structures in six enterprises, Lawrence and
Lorsch (1967) summarized the features of the organization structure to be the
span of control, number of levels to a shared superior, time span of review of
departmental performance, specificity of review of departmental performance and
importance of formal rules. Drazin and Van de Ven (1985) defined the
organizational structure in terms of specification, standardization, discretion
and personnel expertise. They agreed with Lawrence and Lorsh on the feature of
specialization.
Mintzberg
(1989) studied seven types of organizations, namely, entrepreneurial, machine,
professional, diversified, innovative, missionary and political. He found them
to be based on key parts of the organization, type of decentralization and
their coordinating mechanism. Applied research on organizational structures in
organizational companies, developed further when many researchers applied basic
research results on organizational theory in other fields. Lansley (1994)
indicated that strong linkage existed among different organizational models and
advocated using them for the reconciliation of conflicts.
Mukalula
(1996) studied three aspects of an organization firm’s structure: namely,
organizational complexity, formalization, centralization and decentralization
of authority. Sunkuk (1997) adopted five among the seven types of organizations
presented by Mintzberg (1989) to examine which managerial environment will best
reflect that of the organization. Applied research extended the study of
organizations beyond organizational features to relationships with the
operating environment. Among the basic
and applied research studies, there is agreement on the following: • The
structure of an organization is important to the performance of the
organization.
This
would mean that the project management team’s structure would certainly affect
its performance. Two basic features of a structure of an organization are its
width as indicated by spans of control, and its height as indicated by the
levels of decentralization. Mintzberg (1983) defines the organizational
structure as; “…the sum of total in which its labour is divided into distinct
tasks and then its coordination is achieved among these tasks.” There is no
such thing as a best organizational structure. One needs to carefully consider
the reason for why the organization is there and Mintzberg (1983) means that
the structure should be selected to achieve an internal harmony, as well as
alignment with the organization’s situation (Hatch, 2006; Mintzberg, 1983).
The
establishment of management structures for the management of a project is one
of the important activities required for accomplishing goals. Shaker (2003) in
a publication reviewing Peter Druckerbooks, who argues that management is the
function, which involves getting things done through other people. Basically
this involves the following, which are all aspects of setting organization
matters for performance: Getting Managers with leadership capabilities, getting
staff with competence and appropriate skills, placing responsibilities on
people for successful completion of the project, establishing clear delegated
authorities Defining proper communication lines.
Since
these outlined duties relate to the matters concerned with internal
organizational running, it may be argued that they are solely for the purpose
of improving only organizational performance. Kotnour (2000) asserts that some
of the internal organizational matters such as organizational learning
practices increase project success too. The tendency to have the project
success increased therefore lies in the ability of the manager to develop
certain strategies within the organization. The research intends to investigate
the impact of organizational structure on inter personal relationship in large
organization.
Interpersonal relationship is an important
aspect in every organization, and it is one of the vital components in human
relationship. In today’s fast competitive business world, it is very difficult
to hire people and retain them for a long period of time. Hence, organizations
including the Nigerian banking firms are trying to maintain the workforce and
to get the best out of them in that process. A study on interpersonal
relationship and customer satisfaction is expected to enhance the organizations’
understanding of the challenges encountered in the process of attracting,
retaining, developing, motivating, communicating the workforce for improved
productivity (Velmurugan, 2016).
Interpersonal
relationship at work constitutes the day today interaction between co-workers
or managers and employees. These relations are a natural part of work
environment and are usually pleasant and creative, but sometime, the source of
tension and frustration (De Dreu, et al, 2003). Workplace relationships are
unique interpersonal relationships with important implications for the
individuals in those relationships and the organizations in which the
relationships exist and develop. Previous studies conducted in interpersonal
relationship have indicated that workplace relationships directly affect a
worker’s ability to work and be productive which also impacts on customer
satisfaction (Manta & Harges, 2013).
The
importance of workplace interpersonal relationship in influencing customer
satisfaction cannot be overemphasized. Research has demonstrated that
friendship at work can improve individual employee attitudes such as job
satisfaction, job commitment, engagement and perceived organizational support
etc., (Morrison, 2009; & Ellingwood, 2001). Interpersonal communication and
relationship in recent years has been consistently placed high as an important
requirement for conducting successful job performance in the organizations.
(Amit Kumar, 2014). This is why companies including the deposit money banks put
a high importance on interpersonal communication in the workplace.
It
is noteworthy to emphasize that one of the most impeding forces to customer
satisfaction in banks is the absence of effective communication and
interpersonal relationship amongst employees. The preliminary investigations
revealed that some customers of the deposit money banks in Port Harcourt
experience low level of satisfaction at one time or the other, and the concern
is if the low satisfaction level experienced could be associated with poor workplace
interpersonal relationship? This could be in the form of poor employee
communication, absence of team plays or team building orientation, social
supports, inadequate employee training, lack of respect and courtesy for
customers, inability of bank staff to reduce customer waiting time, unequal
treatment to customers to mention but a few.
Several
customers may have expressed disappointments at the impolite and unfriendly
behaviour displayed by some front desk officers and tellers of some of these banks
and this could be as a result of poor interpersonal communication culture
amongst employees and customers in the workplace, lack of good team building
efforts, social support, relational justice, lack of respect etc.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Organisations
around the world consist of people with similar aim, objective, goals and
insights, who cooperatively join hands to achieve what an individual cannot
achieve in isolation. If therefore, the people that makes the place will not
relate positively with one another then, the goals of the organisation can
hardly be achieved. There are organisations where there are no cordial
relationships among staff members, and subordinates and superiors; for example,
when strife, jealousy, hatred, bias, backbiting, witch-hunting, all of these
and many more co-existing with the people, there is bound to be conflict which
may not be healthy for the organisation. Hence, for a healthy atmosphere in any
organisation, the people must understand their differences, there must be the
“give and take” which is the basis of a true and genuine relationship.
The
problem confronting the research is an assessment of the impact of
organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in large organization.
The research intends to analyze organizational structure and determine its
functionality to enhance interpersonal relationship in large organization.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE
RESEARCH
1
To determine the nature of organization structure
2
To establish the relevance of organisational structure on staff relationship
3
To determine the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal
relationship in large organization.
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION
i.
What constitute the nature of organization structure?
ii.
What role does structure play in staff interpersonal relationship?
iii.
What is the impact of organizational structure on interpersonal relationship in
large organization?
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
STUDY
The
research shall project organization structure as a unifying factor in enhancing
interpersonal relationship in large organization towards the realization of
organizational aims and objective. The study on interpersonal relationship in
workplace will be beneficial to organizations, managers, and employees in a
number of ways. The study will help to unveil vital information on the need and
current challenges of interpersonal relationship in workplace and possible
working solution for overcoming the identified problems to organizations. The
study will be beneficial to managers and employees in the sense that the study
will point out areas of strength and weaknesses, thereby, standing as a
corrective measure. Above all, this study will help expand knowledge and serve
as veritable resource tool in the future
1.6 SCOPE OF THE
STUDY
The
research proffers an assessment of the impact of organizational structure on
interpersonal relationship in large organization.
1.7 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Organisation Structure
Mintzberg
(1983) defines the organizational structure as; “…the sum of total in which its
labour is divided into distinct tasks and then its coordination is achieved
among these tasks.” There is no such thing as a best organizational structure.
One needs to carefully consider the reason for why the organization is there
and Mintzberg (1983) means that the structure should be selected to achieve an
internal harmony, as well as alignment with the organization’s situation
(Hatch, 2006; Mintzberg, 1983).
Formalization
Formalization
is defined as the emphasis placed on following rules and procedures when
performing one’s job (cf. Pugh et al. 1968). Formalization reduces confusion
because staff know what they are expected to do during product development and
this helps coordinate effort, and facilitate productive exchanges between
managers (Thompson 1967). Further, formalization establishes managers’ role
expectations and expected information flows from their counter parts on product
development projects (Moenaert and Souder 1990a).