Exercises
Exercise 1. Find where in the text it is said about the points given below. Put down the number of the paragraph:
the appearance of the matrix structure
the main benefit of the functional structure
reasons for delayering in the traditional hierarchical structures
results of delayering in the traditional hierarchical structures
the meaning of “customercentric ” approach of restructuring
Exercise 2. Find the terms in the text which designate the following:
1. a structure which organizes a business into project teams to carry out certain objectives
2. a structure in which companies have separate divisions according to the product that is being worked on
3. a structure where country managers inform of the changes that would need to be made in the product in order to satisfy the market
4. a structure in which a fairly traditional chain of command is put in place
Exercise 3. Say if the following statements are true or false:
1. In the product lines structure the focus is always on the target market.
2. Many firms are opting for a kind of hybrid of all of organizational structures.
3. Training is not vitally important in the matrix structure.
4. During of the delayering process in the traditional hierarchical structures layers of middle management were removed.
5. The move towards centralization and outsourcing influences on an organizational structure of a company.
6. A company of the functional structure can be a bureaucratic set up which favours speedy decision-making.
Exercise 4. Answer the following questions:
What are main kinds of organisational structure?
Is one kind of organisational structure more common than the others?
When did “delayering” take place?
What were the reasons for delayering and what were the results?
How does Julia MacLauchlan describe Microsoft's organisational structure?
What must established companies insure?
Exercise 5. Explain the concept of organizational structure.
Exercise 6. List main organizational structures companies can choose from.
Exercise 7. Prove that Microsoft is a good example of a company that is structured along product lines.
Exercise 8. State the importance for multinational companies of a good geographic structure.
Exercise 9. Make up a plan covering the main ideas. Discuss the text according to the plan.
Variant II
Styles of execution
Read and memorize the following words, words combinations and word-groups:
study - дослідження
approach - підхід
reveal - виявляти
gulf – прірва
separate – відділяти
behaviour - поведінка
gap – проміжок
pose – показувати
severe - серйозний
merge – об’єднуватися
collaborate - співпрацювати
findings – висновки
attitudes - ставлення
managerial expertise – управлінський досвід
subordinate - підлеглий
schism – розкол
path – шлях
sharp - різкий
due course – належним чином
exaggerate – перебільшувати
strength – міцність
rigid – непохитний
adjusting – пристосування
drawback – вада
1. A study comparing British and German approaches to management has revealed the deep gulf which separates managerial behaviour in many German and British companies. The gap is so fundamental, especially among middle managers, that it can pose severe problems for companies from the two countries which either merge or collaborate. The findings are from a study called “Managing in Britain and Germany” carried out by a team of German and British academics from Mannheim University and Templeton College, Oxford.
2. The differences are shown most clearly in the contrasting attitudes of many Germans and Britons to managerial expertise and authority, according to the academics. This schism results, in turn, from the very different levels of qualification, and sorts of career paths, which are typical in the two countries.
3. German managers – both top and middle - consider technical skill to be the most important aspect of their jobs, according to the study. It adds that German managers consider they earn their authority with colleagues and subordinates from this “expert knowledge” rather than from their position in the organizational hierarchy.
4. In sharp contrast, British middle managers see themselves as executives first and technicians second. As a result, German middle managers may find that the only people within their British partner companies who are capable of helping them solve routine problems are technical specialists who do not have management rank. Such an approach is bound to raise status problems in due course.
5. Other practical results of these differences include a greater tendency of British middle managers to regard the design of their departments as their own responsibility, and to reorganize them more frequently than happens in Germany. German middle managers can have “major problems in dealing with this”, the academics point out, since British middle managers also change their jobs more often. As a result, UK organizations often undergo “more or less constant change”.
6. Of the thirty British middle managers in the study, thirteen had held their current job for less than two years, compared with only three in Germany. Many of the Britons had also moved between unrelated departments or functional areas, for example from marketing to human resources. In contrast, all but one of the Germans had stayed in the same functional area. Twenty of them had occupied their current positions for five years or more, compared with only five of the Britons.
7. The researchers almost certainly exaggerate the strengths of the German pattern; its very stability helps to create the rigid attitudes which stop many German companies from adjusting to external change. But the authors of the report are correct about the drawbacks of the more unstable and less technically oriented British pattern. And they are right in concluding that the two countries do not merely have different career systems but also, in effect, different ways of doing business.
From the Financial Times