This paper examines how organizational structure influences workplace culture and employee behavior. Drawing on perspectives from Kanter (1999) and Buhler (2011), the paper surveys key structural types — functional, geographic, open/team-based, and matrix — and analyzes how each orients employees and managers toward different priorities, from efficiency and stability to innovation and market growth. Using examples such as Google, Apple, Pepsi, and FedEx, the paper argues that no single structure is universally superior; instead, the optimal structure depends on a company's strategic objectives, market conditions, and leadership philosophy. The paper concludes that aligning organizational structure with strategic goals is essential for cultivating a culture that motivates desired behaviors at all levels.
An organization's structure affects many aspects of the organization. Kanter (1999) notes that people within an organization tend to operate in line with the messages they are receiving, so structural elements do affect culture and vice versa. An organizational structure reflects how the people at the top of the organization view how the organization works. For example, if a company has few new products, it might operate with a geographic structure, which would encourage employees to adopt a transactional mindset and build stability within a tightly defined context. However, if products form the basis of the organizational culture, people working on a specific product may become more oriented toward growing that product. The orientation of the company differs, and so the way people within the company see themselves and their roles will also differ. Buhler (2011) further notes that when an organization changes its structure, managers are required to "enhance their strategic orientation."
Below the organizational structure level, there are different ways to affect culture and behavior. Kanter (1999) notes that incentives provide specific behavioral orientations and can therefore be used to drive change within the organization. However, one must question whether either author makes a fully compelling case that organizational structure meaningfully affects front-line employees whose daily activities are not governed by management structures several layers above them. Kanter discusses fostering innovation, goal-setting, and related topics, but all of these operate well below the organizational structure level. Managers can affect both behavior and culture, but they do so at a more direct level. Organizational structure changes may reflect shifts in executive priorities and how resources are deployed at higher levels, but their connection to lower-level activities remains tenuous. That said, organizational culture can be affected by structural changes — FedEx sought to accomplish exactly this when it reorganized Kinko's into FedEx Office.
A functional structure reflects a fairly traditional or simple organization that operates with a handful of products in a handful of markets. This structure does not reflect a growth orientation and tends to result in a high degree of fragmentation of activities. Behaviors within this structure are likely to focus on maintaining the status quo. It may also reflect a more manufacturing- or research-based culture, where incentives are designed to reward incremental innovation.
A geographic structure places less emphasis on product and more on market development. This tends to create a culture that prioritizes sales, marketing, and the customer over engineering. Managers working within this structure are therefore more likely to incentivize sales and market growth rather than product development, since product is viewed as secondary. A geographic structure may also result in a company pursuing different strategies for different parts of the world, particularly if regional departments prove to operate with significant independence.
A more open organizational structure is used when a company wants to foster a very high level of collaboration and innovation. Google is a well-known example of this approach. Employees belong to work teams more than to formal divisions. This type of structure is commonly found in smaller, creative companies, but larger organizations that also wish to foster creativity and innovation are increasingly finding ways to create open teams in order to facilitate higher levels of innovation. This structural element has become a core part of Google's innovation platform and organizational culture over the years.
"Why no single structure suits all companies"
"Aligning structure with efficiency, innovation, or market goals"
All organizational structures help to shape the behaviors and cultures of their organizations. This is an important point that highlights why it is critical to have the right organizational structure in place to foster the results that are required. Behaviors of management in particular are affected by organizational structure, and it is management initiatives that will inform lower-level patterns of work and the policies that motivate and incentivize workers throughout the organization. Companies simply need to find the optimal structure for their strategic objectives. By doing so, a company can cultivate a culture that promotes innovation, service excellence, sustainability, or whatever other managerial objective has been prioritized through its organizational design.
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.