Our major goal is to help you achieve your academic goals. We are commited to helping you get top grades in your academic papers.We desire to help you come up with great essays that meet your lecturer's expectations.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/

1. Organizational Architecture and Organizational
Culture
Relationship between organizational architecture and
organizational culture
Organizational structure and organizational culture represent two
elements of organizational operations but with an interdependent
relationship. In the business environment, organizational structure
influences the ethics, dispositions, attitudes and behaviors that shape
up the culture of the workplace. If the organizational architecture of a
company is significantly characterized by hierarchical features, and
decision-making process that is highly impacted by a centralized
management, organizational culture is greatly influenced by the lower
levels that are non autonomous and lack freedom. On the other hand, if
the organizational structure is highly decentralized, there are features
of shared authority and power at all the levels. This kind of an
organization is characterized by all levels that experience a greater
extent of freedom, accountability and independence (Jones, 2010).
The organization that is relevant in the analysis of the relationship
between organizational architecture and organizational culture is
Google. The management at the company has given a considerable
amount of freedom and autonomy to its employees especially those in
the engineering and design divisions. This has critically ensured the
accountability of workers. Google has implemented a policy that gives
workers the opportunity to take part in non-work related activities to
pursue their own interests. This has seen the invention of such
products and utilities like Google Ads, Google Chrome and Gmail. This
implies that workers are given the chance of making decisions that have
proved to be important for the achievements of the organization. It

2. should also be noted that this relationship is a reflection of the
innovation aspect of the firm (Brickley et al, 2009).
The Problem with Billy Riggan
Always Round Tire has initiated an organizational architecture that is
highly characterized by hierarchical features. This has created a
problem whereby key decisions are the only roles of Billy Riggan. The
position of Riggan in the company has been identified as the centre of
decision making. This has resulted into an issue whereby he is expected
to be the one charged with making key decisions aimed at enhancing
the performance of the company. This is a responsibility that is quite
demanding for one person. From the other perspective, the other
research scientists do not have the opportunity of making contributions
to the firm’s decision making processes (Zheng et al, 2010).
The hitch with this situation is that Riggan feels that he is being
overworked, and this is reflected on the overall performance of the
company. Dissatisfied employees have been found to be redundant in
the place of work. This has in turn impacted a weaker edge in terms of
the company’s innovation strength. For instance, it has been
established that workers who feel overused are likely to greatly reduce
their performance. This could eventually impact disaster on the
organization since over reliance on the employees may negatively
affect the firm. For example, other research scientists could feel that
they are not required in the company and could end up engaging in
other activities. Besides, there is also the lack of motivation on the
entire labor force (Christensen et al, 2010).
Problems of Seniority-Based Promotion
The promotion of employees based on their seniority has been
identified as having its merits and demerits. However, in many
companies, promotions that are awarded according seniority have been
faced with complications related to high level positions in an

3. organization. Although seniority-based promotions have been found to
eliminate the possibility of favoritism, the top managers may find it
challenging when it comes to the effective management of the
company at high levels. This confirms the fact that seniority does not
help in making sure that the individuals have better skills in
management (Khanna et al, 2011).
For a company to make sure that it acquires the best senior managers,
promotion should be awarded based on merit and seniority. This will
have an impact of motivation to the workers and enable them to be
more productive instead of promotions based on seniority whereby the
employees are aware that they will be promoted in the future. This has
been noted to ensure that workers are not motivated towards
incorporating innovativeness in the place of work, and this might result
into a situation whereby the firm’s performance is declining or
staggering. Such kinds of workers will not make better managers in the
event that they earn promotions since they lack the skills required for a
good manager and leader. This will also be reflected on the
performance of the entire company (Qayyum, 2012).
Problem of Free Riders
In every team, there are always team riders and people who are
actively involved in the solving of problems, a role that is supposed to
be played by the team. Free riders have been the cause of problems in
many organizations, and this has ensured that there are people who
benefit from the efforts of others. Many firms have been recognized to
be rewarding the entire teams and not individuals. However, the inputs
of different team members have always been characterized by
significant discrepancies. This is a situation whereby some team
members make more contributions compared to others. However, the
management tends to reward the entire team on equal measures
(Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010).

4. This has been established to have serious problems in team as well as
individual workers’ motivations. Workers are well aware that no matter
how small their contribution is, they will be rewarded in the same way
that the others are. There is also the problem linked to individuals not
committing themselves towards making contributions to the
organization. This shows that the company will have teams that lack
motivation since they are eligible for reward and recognition despite
not having significant impact on solution of problems and design of
products. This is an implication that firms will need to create and
implement policies that will discourage free riders. This will be attained
by making sure that individuals are rewarded for their efforts and not
the entire team (Maiden & Perry, 2011).
Problems Associated with 360-Degree Performance Evaluation
Many firms have notably been found to embrace the 360-Degree
performance evaluation method. This type of performance evaluation
is based on employee feedback. There are various complications that
are associated with this kind of performance evaluation. One of the
problems is that the organization may fail to realize the improvement
of performance. This can be attributed to the fact that many
organizations lack a cause-and-effect data showing that this evaluation
process enhances managerial effectiveness, decreases grievances, and
enhances employee retention and productivity (Oh & Berry, 2009).
It is also critical to bear in mind that the 360-degree performance
evaluation method has been established to emphasize on soft goals,
thereby hindering the analysis of the impact and success of the
business. Besides, it also limits other modes of communication.
Companies that have been found to be over reliant on this method of
evaluation have been faced with problems linked to managers using
other valuable communication mechanisms. There is also the fact that
external factors may impact the scores of the evaluation. This can be
attributed to the actuality that satisfaction and morale of employees is

5. heavily influenced by outside factors. The 360-degree model does not
account for the external factors, like family crisis, financial challenges,
and living problems (Heidemeier & Moser, 2009).
Relevance of Responsible Stewardship
Responsible stewardship by organizations can have numerous benefits.
Closely related to the concept of corporate social responsibility,
companies that practice responsible stewardship have been found to
enjoy lost of benefits. Such organizations have been able to increase
their profit margins and accelerate their growth. Organizations like
Unilever have been able to not only champion sustainable business
practices but also implement Sustainable Living Plan, which have
positively impacted the organization’s performance (Waters, 2011).
Responsible stewardship has a positive impact on the organizational
architecture. This can be because of the fact that this avenue enables
individuals to make independent decisions that are achieved through
ethical considerations and innovative products that are sustainable.
Organizations extend the responsibility of workers on the development
and design of products that will encourage customers to come back for
more. This can significantly enhance the satisfaction of customers. It is
also important to note that responsible stewardship has influential
impacts on the reputation of a company. This ascertains that the
organization is viewed as having a positive contribution to the
environment and society (Maon et al, 2010).
Are you in need of a high quality paper on Organizational Architecture
and Organizational Culture? Take it easy!
At http://www.premiumessays.net/ we guarantee our clients
affordable and quality services on 24/7 basis.

6. References
Brickley, J. A., Smith, C. W., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2009). Managerial
economics and organizational architecture. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Christensen, L. T., Cheney, G., Zorn, T. E., & Ganesh, S.
(2010). Organizational communication in an age of globalization:
Issues, reflections, practices. Waveland Press.
Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job
performance ratings: A meta-analytic test of a process model. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 353.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Khanna, T., Song, J., & Lee, K. (2011). The paradox of Samsung’s
rise. Harvard Business Review, 89(7-8), 2301-2306.
Maiden, B., & Perry, B. (2011). Dealing with free‐riders in assessed
group work: results from a study at a UK university. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(4), 451-464.
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Organizational stages and
cultural phases: a critical review and a consolidative model of corporate
social responsibility development. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 12(1), 20-38.
Oh, I. S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and
managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree
performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498.
Qayyum, A. (2012). An Empirical Analysis of Employee Motivation and
the Role of Demographics: the Banking Industry of Pakistan. Global
Business & Management Research, 4(1).

7. Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying:
Understanding & overcoming resistance to cooperative
learning. College Teaching, 58(2), 52-57.
Waters, R. D. (2011). Redefining sewardship: Examining how Fortune
100 organizations use stewardship with virtual stakeholders. Public
Relations Review, 37(2), 129-136.
Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. (2010). Linking organizational
culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating
role of knowledge management. Journal of Business Research, 63(7),
763-771.
- See more at: http://www.premiumessays.net/articles/organizational-
architecture-and-organizational-culture/#sthash.jJdyQq2o.dpuf