The organization structure connotes the kind of framework a firm utilizes to differentiate power and authority, duties and responsibilities and the strategy in which information flows in the company (Cosh, Fu & Hughes 2012). It is vital to state that an organization should select the appropriate structure for its people by their needs and allow them to respond and adapt to the uncertainties and dynamics in its environment. Concerning mechanistic organization structure, Burns, and Stalker (1996) define it as a hierarchical, intrusive business structure that is typified by the centralization of authority, reserved systems, and ways, as well as specialization of functions. In fact, mechanistic firms are easy and straightforward to manage while, at the same time, they are the most difficult to meet the rapid changes in the internal and external environment (Burns & Stalker 1996). Although there are difficulties that are encountered when using this type of structure, it is best to use. In this context, this paper discusses the reasons air traffic centers should utilize a mechanistic structure.
Although the structure encounters difficulties in coping with the rapid changes, it is the best to use in the air traffic centers. This is because it is easy to sustain and does not require to be altered because the centers operate in a stable environment (Burns & Stalker 1996). This implies that the centers should embrace the structure. Moreover, the centers have the authority that reflects a highly defined hierarchy. This is clear in the chain command that covers everyone involved in the air control starting with the US president and ending with the last person who checks his first command. In this chain of command, people at each level have specialized duties and responsibilities that that require various leadership styles. Based on the fact that the air control centers have a relative stable environment, there is less time spend in making decisions because sophisticated decision processes are not needed in this type of structure. The subordinate in the chain of command should follow the directives without questioning their significance (Burns & Stalker 1996). The chain of command in the centers necessitates the flow of communication evident in the mechanistic organization structure.
Moreover, there is the division of labor in mechanistic organization structure, which means that there are departments as well as other divisions that should perform specific functions that range from the complex air traffic controls to sustaining the cleanliness of the building. In the air control centers, there are different officers in each department that report directly to the head of that particular department. The department head is expected to report to the commanding officer who is in charge of all matters associated with individual matters. From these structures, it is clear that there is a division of labor and each officer has specialized in performing particular functions. Thus, by using the mechanistic structure, the air control centers will be aiming at placing employees at designated tasks that will be easy and simple to manage. This will oversee the stability of the centers, and there will be low integration between departments in air control centers. Moreover, the mechanistic structure will result in the promotion of independence of each department. From this perspective, it is right to say that air control centers should use a mechanistic structure to promote independence in the departments and to manage the departments easily.
Another reason that should motivate the air control centers to use mechanistic structures is to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the centers with little need for maintenance (Alderman & Ivory 2011). Since mechanistic structure involves making the most decisions by the management, the information will be communicated using the chain of command that is available in the centers. Another way in which efficiency will be enhanced is through the tasks, which are specialized and divided at the departmental level (Alderman & Ivory 2011). Each department is responsible for controlling specific tasks and operates as independent without interference. Changes in this structure are rare, implying that there are stability and job retention. There is also improved performance in the air centers because individuals do jobs that they are best in. Besides, it is central to problem-solving in the centers because members of the same departments can generate ideas that can be critical to handling a particular mechanical issue.
Notably, the contemporary world is affected by four primary boundaries, which are the administration, task, political, as well as the identity boundaries (Daft 2012). This is not exceptional in the air control centers, and they are put in place. Each of them is vital for proper functioning of the control centers because of the war threats that the departments face. The power boundary is crucial because commands must be followed to the letter during the war . Additionally, it is used because of the innumerable job the air control centers do, and the supervisors in these centers are expected to order the subordinates to carry out particular tasks. However, it would be important to eliminate political boundary because it acts as interference, which mechanistic structure is against (Daft 2012). This would be the case of the task boundary, but it is important to state that this boundary is important because it facilitates specialization in the performance of the tasks.
In this context, the specialization and the chain of command evident in the mechanistic organization structure will play imperative roles in ensuring that any threat is managed appropriately. Therefore, air control centers should use a mechanistic organization structure because it is associated with many benefits. Promotion of stability, ease decision-making, promotion of efficiency and effectiveness, and easier and simpler performance of tasks are among some of the advantages of the structure.
- Alderman, N, & Ivory, C, 2011, ‘Translation and convergence in projects: An organizational perspective on project success,’ Project Management Journal, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 17-30.
- Burns, T, & Stalker, M, 1996. The structure of organizations. Tavistock, Hoboken: NJ.
- Cosh, A, Fu, X, & Hughes, A, 2012, ‘Organisation structure and innovation performance in different environments,’ Small Business Economics, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 301-317.
- Daft, R, 2012. Organization theory and design. Cengage Learning, Boston: MA.
