Management structures
These are some additional concepts which you should consider when analysing and designing organisational structures for emergency management.
Matrix, functional and line structures
A linestructure of an organisation is a structure that is set up as per the reporting lines of the organisation. For example, there might be a chief executive who has five general managers reporting to that position; and each of those five general managers might have eight department managers reporting to them. The work of the organisation is then allocated approximately equally across the structure.
A functionalstructure is one that is set up according to the functions that need to be performed. For example, it might have been decided that you have sales, marketing, production , purchasing, personnel and administration functions that need to be performed. The chief executive will then have a head of each of these functional areas managing and reporting on the performance of these functional areas.
A matrix structure is one which is set up as a combination of both line and functional. For example, a training officer in a department store might have a line reporting relationship to the store manager and a functional reporting relationship to the company training manager. The training manager is accountable for providing quality training services to all the organisation so has a training functional responsibility across the organisation and possibly a line reporting relationship to someone like a personnel director.
So a matrix structure is a combination of both line and functional structures and can vary in its application across an organisation.
Comment
The structures of organisations should hopefully facilitate the most efficient and effective delivery of the organisation's outputs. The tasks performed and the amount of authority that needs to be exercised without referral to higher authority and the urgency with which things need to be done are all factors which will be affected by the organisation's structure.
It is worth noting that the structure of an organisation will neither guarantee nor prevent the success of an organisation. It can inhibit or assist the accomplishment of the organisation's goals; but I have heard a few people say things like ‘we succeeded despite our structure and the limitations it created.'
Line structures are probably the most prevalent structures at this time. Some of the advantages of this structure are that the senior executives tend to be appointed by virtue of the general management skills rather than specific technical abilities. This encourages them to have an interest in the business as a whole rather than just one part and also means that they have to delegate responsibility and authority down to the appropriate levels on matters requiring technical expertise. The implementation time of day-to-day matters can be quite quick if the appropriate delegation of responsibility and authority is in place.
Some of the disadvantages are that the impact of specific technical matters on the outputs of the organisation may be diluted by the time they are communicated to the strategic decision makers. I can remember an example where a strategic decision had been made to build very large locomotives as they would be more economic than the two medium-sized ones needed to pull the train load. It was not until after they had been built and delivered that a bridge engineer managed to get his message through to executive management that most of the bridges in the state were not strong enough to support the locomotive.
Functional structures are also in common use. Advantages of this structure includes the probability that the various levels of management within the different functions have been appointed because of their technical expertise, and that there is depth of knowledge, skills and experience. The implication is that from a technical stand-point the organisation would be strong and within the function there would be support for their technical accomplishments.
An obvious disadvantage is that managers can be blinded to the big picture of the organisational outputs by the narrow specifics of their area of expertise. It is quite common for functional heads to pursue and defend their functional area's objectives to the detriment and even demise of the organisation as a whole. Again I can think of an example where a production engineer became the general manager and his purpose in life as he saw it was to produce the company products at the most economic price. His marketing people said that in fact the customers wanted items that were not so economic to produce, and that they did not mind paying the extra costs as the items better suited their needs. The general manager would not be shifted from his goal in life of the most economic batch production possible. Towards the end he was having to hire extra warehouse facilities to store the very economically-produced units that no-one wanted to buy. He blamed the sales people for not having the skills to sell what he was having produced very economically. The company no longer produces anything and he is no longer a general manager.
I am not trying to overstate the disadvantages of functional structures—it is a matter of which is most appropriate, and if your functional structure works with no problems then you have no concerns. Much can depend on the senior functional manager also being a visionary who can see the big picture, and how the functions fit together and contribute to the overall accomplishment of the organisation.
Matrix structures have appeared over the last few decades possibly in response to the perceived difficulties of some of the other arrangements. The advantages are that they combine the strengths of the line and functional structures.
One of the major disadvantages is that a matrix can cause severe interpersonal conflicts where a person is trying to serve two masters well and there might be contrasting or even conflicting requirements from the functional and line executives. The short-term resolution of this is often based on whose budget their salary is paid from. This usually determines whose objectives are implemented in the short-term but does not usually resolve the interpersonal conflict that can occur.
Centralised, decentralised and semi-autonomous structures
Centralised structures are ones where the authority or power is centralised at the corporate head office. This will usually include all the decision making including budgeting, hiring of staff, etc.
Decentralised structures are ones where the authority or power has been decentralised from the corporate head office to the various functional or geographical outposts. This will vest the authority with the local manager to make decisions regarding budgets, hiring of staff, etc.
A semi-autonomous structure is one where an organisation may have several branches; the manager of each has been given total control of all the human, material, machinery and financial resources of that location and is held accountable for the effectiveness and efficiency for that location. The executives to whom the branch managers report are in turn accountable to senior management. A government department might be described as a variation on this theme, in that the responsible minister is accountable to the community to ensure that their taxes are wisely spent and that the community is getting a good return or service for their investment.
|
 |
In reality you might find that a number of organisations are organised in ways that include parts of each structure and all of the different options. Consider this possibility. Do you know of any organisations that are structured in this way? Why do you think that this is so? |
 |
Which structure or combination of structures is most appropriate, depends on the organisation's work, its personnel, and its environment. There is not a definitive correct answer for all organisations and all people in all circumstances. This is one of the reasons that it is quite common for organisations to be restructured; and then a few years later to be restructured yet again.
|
|
See if you can find an example of an organisation that has been recently restructured and write down how it was structured before, how it is structured now, and the rationale behind the changes. |
Comment
Re-structuring and organisational reform are issues that are more common these days and are said by cynics to be a substitute for positive achievement. There should be an opportunity, as intimated earlier, to facilitate the most effective and efficient accomplishment of the organisational outputs. The structure or restructure of an organisation is not a panacea, but I hope that if you are given the opportunity to contribute to any consultation you will provide some positive input as a result of what you have learned by working through this section.
Structures in emergency management
An important thing about emergency services is that in times of emergency, they are expected to respond quickly and decisively and their structure and ethos should facilitate quick and effective response. Even so, there are some important distinctions between our front line emergency services, the police, ambulance, fire services and State/ territory emergency services:
- The police and ambulance quite often are working on their own or with one other person, whilst the fire service and State/ Territory emergency service usually responds with a team of people.
- The fire service is also mainly focused on the protection of life and property through fire suppression, while the focus of the ambulance service is on treatment and transportation of patients.
- The police have a similar charter to the fire service in that they are expected to protect the lives and property of the community, but their scope encompasses the cause of the threat.
|
|
Consider each of the emergency service agencies mentioned above, or those that exist in your own country, state or region. Do you think that these differences have any implications with regard to the organisations' structures? |