INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AHMEDABAD

Term Paper Assignment

Understanding Ideology-Driven Organizations and their Structure.

Submitted to Prof.George Kendathil & Prof. Pradhyumana Khokhle

In Partial fulfillment of the requirements of course

Organizational Behaviour-I (Macro)

Submitted on: September 20 , 2010 By

th

Abrarali Saiyed

Understanding Ideology-Driven Organizations and their Structure - Abrarali Saiyed Abstract:
Study of most organizations is based on the principles put forth by Max Webber and is applicable directly to public and private enterprises rather than the social sector organizations. Organizational structure is known to follow the strategy adopted by the organization which in turn is influenced by the ideology that the organization follows. This paper attempts to examine how the ideological structure of organizations and alternative structures of control affect different organizational interests and outputs. Two propositions are identified; the first is Organizational ideology, politics, strategy and structure have significant impacts on the NGO’s strategy formulation and implementation and the second is NGO context affects approaches to strategy formulation and implementation as well as organizational structure and relationships.

Introduction:

NGOs- Part of the Social Service Sector:
Management science attributed the study of organization to Max Weber, whose sociological agenda justified organizations as extensions of society, their organizational formats derived from religious beliefs, power and status-- organizations whose functionalism is rooted in the practical, functional disciplines that seek ways of controlling and making more efficient the organization‘s production of goods and services (Robbins 1990). Seeking the third way between government and private enterprise, the mandates of the third sector are providing services and representing the needs of civil society. Thus, the sociological and political roots of radical, social constructionist and humanist approaches to organizational theory have origins that are different from Weberian management science. Rather, the third sector is focused on the societal
2|Page

consequences of organizations and the dynamics of social movements, power and intellectual change (Eng 2005).

NGOs are private and non-profit organizations that are supposed to pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development (World Bank, 1989). This, however, does not mean that all the NGOs need to pursue all of the above activities to qualify as an NGO. Sen (1987) has viewed NGOs as non-governmental and non-profit organizations and as a sector of society that has diverse entities operating under different paradigms.

Organizational Structure
The study of organizational structure is not new and the original precepts have not changed significantly. Bozeman and Straussman (1984, p. 71) state ―…the Old Testament records the deliberate design to organize a mass who had lost their organizational forms during a long servitude as slaves.‖ Obviously as society has grown and been influenced by advances in technology several variables have changed somewhat, but the basics ―…have gone largely unchallenged and served as a basis for the development of the culture of Western industrial society‖ (Bozeman and Straussman, 1984, p. 71) How the ideological structure of organizations and alternative structures of control affect different organizational interests and outputs is a topic that begs examination in depth according to organization scholars, Hinings and Greenwood (2002).

Literature survey:
Ideology- The Concept Ideology is frequently used in the social sciences and it has been defined in a number of different ways. Normally, writers on the subject agree that ideology concerns values, ideals, beliefs and ways of looking at the world. But beyond this view of ideology as having something to do with
3|Page

ideas, there is not so much agreement as variation concerning the nature of the concept. Ideology could also be defined as a relatively coherent set of assumptions, beliefs and values about a demarcated part of social reality, being illuminated in a selective and legitimizing way, restricting autonomous and critical reflection and sometimes favoring sectional interests. NGOs tend to be driven by value-based ideological purposes (Sills, 1957).

As Geert (1973, 27. P. 231) has written:

. . .ideology is the justificatory (dimension of culture)—it refers to that part of culture which is actively concerned with the establishment and defense of patterns of belief and value . . . ideology names the structures of situations in such a way that the attitude contained toward them is one of commitment . . . it seeks to motivate action.

As Filby and Willmott' suggest, "ideology refers to symbol systems that are deployed by actors to define as well as to secure their sectional interests.''

Organizational ideology is the overreaching organizational values. It gives structural- functional perspective of the 1950s (Blau, 1955; Goulder, 1954), but during the 1960s this ingredient of understanding organizations and their behaviors was lost. Perrow (1967) added the goal perspective, especially the concept of the derivation and character of organizations albeit in the background of technology. Structural functionalism, however, argues that the origin of values often lies in the structure. ―The concept of ideology considers the significance of the societal culture in what is going on in organizations. Ideologies of work, consumption, social relations, justice, management, rationalizations, advanced technology, etc., link together a society or a culture (which may be national or international) and its institutions and organizations at a given historical period.‖ Mats
Alvesson (1987, P.13)

4|Page

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)-Ideology Driven Organizations
There is a lack of research which examines NGOs in regard to organizational strategy, structure and control. (Bonache et al., 2001).

Definition of NGO
According to Sen(1987), NGOs represent the nucleus of experimentation in grassroots development. NGOs can be private agencies that support international development, or indigenous or religious groups organized nationally or regionally (Nalinikumari and Maclean, 2005). They can be a group of citizens that raise awareness among the public and influence government policies. Various charitable and religious associations and groups that mobilize private funds and use them for the development of society also are considered NGOs. Non-profit literature the term ‗voluntary organization‘ is commonly used for domestic third sector organizations. NGO literature the umbrella term ‗non-governmental organization‘ is generally used throughout, although the category ‗NGO‘ may be broken down into specialized organizational sub-groups such as ‗public service contractors‘, ‗people‘s organizations‘, ‗voluntary organizations‘ and even ‗governmental NGOs‘ or ‗grassroots support organizations‘ and ‗membership support organizations‘ (Lewis, 2006) The NGO literature has tended to see NGOs as one of a number of key actors in processes of development alongside the state, local government, foreign donors and private corporations. In contrast to this relatively ‗integrated‘ approach, the non-profit literature has to a greater extent focused on the organizations themselves and on the concept of the ‗sector‘ as a distinctive subject for research non-profit has concentrated on service delivery and welfare organizations more than advocacy and social change organizations (Lewis, 2006) ‗Non-governmental‘, ‗third sector‘ or ‗not-for profit‘ organizations have in recent years become high profile actors within public policy landscapes at local, national and global levels. Around the world, there is an increasing commitment to the delivery of social services through involving neither voluntary organizations which are neither government agencies directed by the state nor organizations committed to the ‗for-profit‘ ethos of the business world (Lewis, 2003) Nongovernmental organizations are a heterogeneous group. A long list of acronyms has developed around the term 'NGO': INGO stands for international NGO, BINGO is short for
5|Page

business-oriented international NGO, RINGO is an abbreviation of religious international NGO, ENGO, short for environmental NGO, GONGOs are government-operated NGOs. ―Formal (professionalized) independent societal organizations whose primary aim is to promote common goals at the national or the international level‖ (Chang, 2005) The World Bank defines NGOs as "private organizations that pursue activities to relieve suffering, promote the interests of the poor, protect the environment, provide basic social services, or undertake community development" In wider usage, the term NGO can be applied to any non-profit organization which is independent from government. NGOs are typically valuebased organizations which depend, in whole or in part, on charitable donations and voluntary service. Although the NGO sector has become increasingly professionalized over the last two decades, principles of altruism and voluntarism remain key defining characteristics (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2006).

Importance of NGOs in the Indian Context
The Report of the Thirtieth United Nations Issues Conference (1999) has clearly stated that NGOs are more involved than ever before in global policy-making. This report has also predicted that the number of NGOs and the nature of their involvement would broaden and would be evolved in terms of substance. Nalinakumari and Maclean (2005) have observed the exponential growth in the number of NGOs. They have reported that from around 12,500 during the year 1980, the number of international NGOs that is working in different parts of the world has increased to 45,000 in 2000. The developing world has increasingly come to look at NGOs as a conduit for financial aid and assistance. In the last few decades, there has been a proliferation of NGOs in India (Handy et al., 2005). The John Hopkins Comparative Study of the Third Sector found more than one million NGOs in India representing various sectors, ranging from the environmental to social development sectors (Salmon and Anheier, 1997). The nonprofit sector in India employs about 20 million people and attracts funds to the tune of INR 18,000 cr annually. The 1985-90 five-year plan of the Indian government included NGOs explicitly in its plan for the first time and integrated them in the development process. Then in the subsequent five-year plans, the role of NGOs as a partner in the development process has been duly articulated in the policy documents. In the Ninth and the Tenth five-year plan an
6|Page

enhanced role of the sectoral trio of public-private-community has been visualized as the synergistic combination that would act as the prime mover and the driving force for the overall development of India.

Organizational Structure
A number of diverse definitions of organizational structure are found in literature, but in essence the focus of each remains fairly uniform. Hodge, Anthony and Gales (1996, p.32) put forward that ‗structure refers to the sum total of the way in which an organization divides its labor into distinct tasks and then coordinates them‘. While O‘Neill, Beauvais and Scholl (2001, p.133), drawing on the definitional elements of structure presented by Mintzberg (1979, 1989), Katz and Kahn (1966) and Burns and Stalker (1961), define it as: … the degree of centralization of decision-making, formalization of rules, authority, communication, and compensation, standardization of work processes and skills, and/or control of output by acceptance of only adequate outcomes. Structure ultimately describes ―how organizations ‗coalesce‘ to manage work flows and service customers‖ (Maccoby 1996, p.60). Mintzberg (1979) suggests that the rationale is the standardization of work processes and the specification of work output and the skills necessary to complete work tasks to the prescribed standards, thus meeting the goals and objectives of the organization. Organizations according to Daft (2007) are considered ―social entities that are goal-directed, designed as deliberately structured and coordinated activity systems and linked to the external environment.‖ The main element of an organization is its people and their relationships with one another. ―An organization exists when people interact with one another to perform essential functions that help attain goals‖ (Daft 2007). Organizational structure is basically about how an organization is pieced together. Structure reflects some of the primary ways that people network with one another in and across jobs or departments (Sims 2002). Formal organizational structure is often communicated through an organizational chart, policies and procedures, designated roles and responsibilities, formal communication mechanisms as well as people‘s behavior (Hunter 2002 p.xii). These aspects are
7|Page

described by Wang and Ahmed (2002 p.6) as the ‗hard components‘ of structure. The ‗soft component of structure‘, the informal structure, refers to the interpersonal interactions and crossfunctional activities that are seen within an organization but are not clearly delineated on the organizational chart. Hodge et al. (1996) highlight that the informal structure results not only from social and political networks and relationships that evolve as people work together but also as an outcome of issues with the formal structure. Wang and Ahmed (2002 p.6) propose that ‗it is widely accepted that informal structure does not necessarily coincide with formal organizational relations‘. Organizational Structure institutionalizes: o o o o o

How people will interact with each other How communications will flow How rewards are distributed How power relationships are defined What is important to the organization Organizational structure provides the fundamental template for the continuation of an

organization‘s culture, norms, values, philosophies, and informal activities.

Organization Forms
There are two basic forms of organizations – mechanistic and organic. A mechanistic system is characterized by reliance on formal rules and regulations, centralization of decision making, narrowly defined job responsibilities, and a rigid hierarchy of authority. The emphasis is on following procedures and rules. In contrast, an organic system is characterized by low to moderate use of formal rules and regulations, decentralized and shared decision making, broadly defined job responsibilities, and a flexible authority structure with fewer levels in the hierarchy. Top management typically makes decisions that determine the extent to which an organization will operate as a mechanistic system or an organic system. A mechanistic system is essentially a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is characterized by principles that include: o Specialization

8|Page

o o o o

Hierarchy Rules and Regulation Rational Decision-making Selection and promotion based on technical competence (Sims 2002).

Hierarchy of Authority
Hierarchy of authority represents the extent to which decision-making processes are prescribed and where formal power resides. In a mechanistic system, higher level departments set or approve goals and detailed budgets for lower level departments and issue directives to them. A mechanistic system has as many levels in its hierarchy as necessary to achieve tight control. An organic system has few levels in its hierarchy, which makes coordination and communication easier and fosters innovation (Sims 2002). In the paper written by Hannan et al (2006), the authority or the span of control the superior has in the organization was studied. According to them increasing a superior‘s span of control reduces the effectiveness of capital budgeting in eliciting truthful reports.

Division of Labor
Division of labor refers to the various ways of dividing up tasks and labor to achieve goals. The more that tasks are divided into separate jobs, the more those jobs are specialized and the narrower the range of activities job incumbents are required to perform. The mechanistic system follows the view that the greater the division of labor in organizations, the greater will be the efficiency of organizations and the amount of wealth created. However, a continued increase in the division of labor may eventually become counterproductive. Employees who perform only very routine and simple jobs that require few skills may become bored and frustrated. The results may be low quality and low productivity, high turnover, and high absenteeism. The organic system takes advantage of the benefits from the division of labor, but it is sensitive to the negative results of carrying the division of labor too far (Sims 2002).

9|Page

Rules and Procedures
Rules are formal statements specifying acceptable behaviors and decisions by employees. In a mechanistic system, the tendency is to create detailed uniform rules to cover tasks and decisions whenever possible. In an organic system, the tendency is to create rules only when necessary. Procedures represent sequences of steps that managers and employees must follow in performing tasks and dealing with problems. In a mechanistic system, rules and procedures tend to be developed at the top and issued via memoranda. Such memos may convey the expectation of strict compliance and the adverse consequences of not complying. In an organic system, employee input is likely to be sought on changes in current rules and procedures or on proposed rules and procedures when they are absolutely necessary. In an organic system employees at all levels are expected to question, evaluate, and make suggestions about such proposals, with an emphasis on collaboration and interdependence (Sims 2002).

Organizational Forms
Mintzberg (1979) proposed that organizational structures fall into five fundamental configurations - the simple (coordinated by direct supervision), the machine bureaucracy (coordinated by standardization of work processes), the professional bureaucracy (coordinated by the standardization of skills), the diversified form of bureaucracy (coordinated by standardization of output) and adhocracy (coordinated by mutual adjustment). Each is suitable for specific contexts and has its own traits, distinctive strengths and latent weaknesses. The simple structure In a simple organizational or entrepreneurial structure, the chief executive officer takes on the fundamental directive role. This structure is designed to be dynamic and responsive and is the one that start ups go through in the formative stage of their development (Mintzberg, 1979). Such organizations are simple, informal and flexible and have a small managerial hierarchy with little support staff. Communication is informal and vertical, a strong sense of mission and vision guides decision making and the primary coordinating mechanism is the direct supervision of the CEO (Hunter 2002). There is some modest regulation in the technical system within this structure thus avoiding any need for formalized behavior, delegation of decision making or
10 | P a g e

standardization of tasks (Mintzberg, 1979). Such organizations can be highly responsive and agile. But, there is the danger in a constant dependence upon the personal skills, knowledge and experience of the senior management. It could mean that such organizations stay comparatively static. However, as size increases and with maturity these organizations need to take on different configurations. The functional structure It is also known as ‗Machine Bureaucracy‘ (Mintzberg, 1989), functional departmentalization (Banner, 1995) or functional grouping (Hodge et al. 1996) in the literature. This structure involves the grouping of similar or related occupational functions or processes in units like manufacturing operations, marketing, human resources and financial operations. It is based on the concept of high specialization. The guiding principle is that all personnel occupied in the same functional area should be co-located. Such organizations have the following characteristics:         ―authoritative, deterministic, bureaucratic centralized authority large managerial hierarchy, large support staff managers‘ role is to direct the effort of the staff standardization of tasks is the primary coordinating mechanism decision making is guided by standard operating procedures communication is formal and vertical, following the hierarchy of the organization complexity in the number of levels, job titles, and geographic regions‖ (Hunter 2002, p.xiii)

Distinctive division of labor is a unique attribute of the functional organizations. (Hunter 2002). The strengths of the structure lie in its simplicity. The structure also affords the capability to sustain mass production of tasks by utilization and co-ordination of groups of individuals with high levels of technical expertise. Such organizations are generally large and need a simple and stable environment to maintain their effectiveness, Mintzberg (1989) also points out that the standardization of work and the use of extensive support staff helps reduce uncertainty to some
11 | P a g e

extent. Other advantages of this approach are ―ease of supervision, economy and efficiency in operations, simplification and standardization of staff training and maintenance of the power and prestige of major functions‖ (Banner 1995). Davis and Weckler (1996) also point out that the advantages of the supervisors and subordinates sharing the same job-related knowledge and speaking the same language related to their functional specialty. A major weakness, however, is that it may encourage divisional interests and result in strain between various functional groups, usually a product of inconsistent objectives (Peters 1993). Poor cross-function communication is also a significant disadvantage. Within this structure communication travels up and down in vertical silos rather than across all departments. This limited communication has a number of negative effects on the organization including duplication of effort, reduced cooperation because each group is looking out for its interests, as well as limited efficiency as the focus of group effort is on functions, Peters (1993) makes the point that: ―Functional organizations are not organized in a way which gives continuity of service to customers. Customers may well find themselves addressed by marketing, sales, production, delivery and accounts personnel in turn, none of whom have any knowledge of their predecessors‘ transactions.‖ Some other concerns are with the propensity of over-specialization in a functional structure, of responsibility for outcomes resting only with the senior management and what Banner (1995) describes as the potential for key people within functional departments to build up inwardlooking and constricted views of their organization and its mission. Such introspection can hamper the acceptance of new ways of working, particularly ways that necessitate collaboration across functional boundaries (Mintzberg 1989; Davis & Weckler, 1996). In his earlier work ‗The structuring of organizations‘, Mintzberg (1979) summed up the shortfalls of this structure with: ―…the Machine Bureaucracy is an inflexible structural configuration. As a machine, it is designed for one purpose only. It is efficient in its own limited domain, but cannot easily adapt itself to any other. Above all, it cannot tolerate an environment that is either dynamic or complex.‖

12 | P a g e

The divisional structure In the divisionalized or diversified organizational configuration (Mintzberg, 1989), people with specific expertise are again grouped together but are ordered around products, geographic regions or client groupings. The divisions each generate their own service or product with a relative degree of independence, while some functions such as finance, human resources, strategic planning and overall coordination and control are kept by the ‗headquarters‘. Hunter (2002) identifies the following as key traits of the divisional structure: ―deterministic and autonomous large managerial hierarchy, centralized staff of experts managers‘ role is to implement strategy by directing the outputs of their divisions standardization of outputs is the primary co-ordinating mechanism decision making is guided by financial objectives communication is regulated along formal lines complexity in the diversity of the market and products‖ authoritative,

The divisionalized structure has a number of distinct advantages. In particular, it centers attention on particular products or services, geographic locations or client groups while giving responsibility for outcomes to the divisions themselves. ―With greater autonomy, divisional managers can better plan, delegate, adapt and coordinate divisional activities‖ (Banner, 1995). This configuration also has a number of weaknesses. Banner (1995) suggests that while divisions present opportunities for new managers to be trained, the structure demands many people with general managerial experience to maintain it. Perhaps more prominently, multiple organizational divisions result in duplication of staff, technology and facilities and open up the possibility for competition for resources between divisions and the centre. Mintzberg (1989) raised questions on the capacity of such organizations to adapt rapidly to innovative ways of working by suggesting ‗innovation requires entrepreneurship, or intrapreneurship, and these…do not thrive under the diversified configuration‘.

13 | P a g e

The professional bureaucracy Mostly an outcome of the rise of service industries, the professional bureaucracy is evident in universities, hospitals, social service agencies and other organizations that have a huge core of professional personnel whose work is standardized by the training they are required to undergo. Importantly, for coordination purposes ‗the professional bureaucracy relies on specialization, another word for professionalism‘ (Banner 1995). Hunter (2002) lists the following as the key characteristics of this structure: ―bureaucratic, decentralized, autonomous minimal middle-line hierarchy with large spans of control, large support staff standardization of skills is the primary co-ordinating mechanism individual professionals work autonomously, subject to the controls of their profession training, reinforced by indoctrination, is lengthy and complicated decision making is highly individualized and guided by internalized sets of procedures communication is strong with clients and weak between colleagues complexity is in the work processes of the professionals‖ The distinctive characteristic of this design is the system of ―pigeon-holes‖ or categories within which individuals work (Hunter 2002). Another characteristic prominent in the literature is the degree of unease that professionals feel when working within a bureaucratic structure. Some of the widespread concerns registered by professionals are stifled creativity and unreasonable managers - Banner (1995) suggests ―this response is simply a matter of professionals objecting to the imposition of rules that conflict with the tenets of their profession or their professional training.‖ The adhocracy This configuration is the opposite of the machine bureaucracy. The structure is fluid and extremely organic with hardly any formalization of behaviour. The key features of the adhocracy are described by Mintzberg (1979) as: ―high horizontal job specialization based on formal training

14 | P a g e

a tendency to group specialists in functional units for housekeeping purposes but to deploy them in small market-based teams to do their work selective decentralization in and between multidisciplinary teams coordination by mutual adjustment‖

This configuration is markedly different from other structures in that, neither the specialization within the organization nor functional units have any real place in the adhocracy. It is dependent upon individuals joining together in multiple-disciplinary teams to achieve particular project outcomes. Adhocracy is most suitable to a dynamic and highly complex environment. Matrix structures Matrix configurations figure largely in the literature on organizational structure in the latter decades of the last century (Bartlett & Ghoshal 1997, 1998; Galbraith 1994; Kolodny 1979). A ‗simultaneous structure‘ (Banner 1995), it merges functional or bureaucratic structure with transitory project teams of specialists pieced together for particular projects. The key characteristics of the matrix structure, Hunter (2002) are ―the dual reporting relationships and authority, the vertical and horizontal communication and the complexity that is inherent in such a structure.‖ According to Sy and D‘Annunzio (2005) matrix structure: ―leverages functional economies of scale while remaining small and task-focused focuses employees on multiple business goals facilitates innovative solutions to complex, technical problems improves employees‘ companywide focus through increased responsibility and decisionmaking increases information flow through the creation of lateral communication channels enhances personal communication skills‖

Banner (1995) also suggests that the matrix approach augments risk taking, supports better planning and faster response to client and market demands. It also provides the organizational
15 | P a g e

dexterity ―to formulate teams according to project requirements and to reassign personnel quickly as circumstances and demands change‖ (Davis & Weckler 1996; Kolodny 1979). The matrix structure has many strengths, a number of difficulties are also attached to this organizational configuration, particularly in the area of management. Sy and D‘Annunzio (2005) found that ―misalignment of goals, unclear roles and responsibilities, poor communication, ambiguous authority and silo-focused employees‖ were common problems for many. Despite these weaknesses, organizations do clearly evolve structurally in order to adjust to new circumstances and many are now facing new circumstances.

Factors affecting Organizational design:
There are two general theories of organizational design: the universalistic approach (the standard hierarchical design) and the contingency approach, which has no identified form. The universalistic approach is anchored in the premise that there is one "best" way to structure an organization not considering the situation and that is based on a set of values that guide the design process. This approach is based on the classical and the bureaucratic theories of organizational design. These forms are typified as having highly specialized jobs, narrow spans of control; departments based on function and process, and centralized authority. These organizations also have quite a lot of layers of management through which directions and communications must go by. There are two factors that managers evaluate before designing a Nongovernmental organization. These factors are: the organization‘s strategy and its external environment. Each factor alone can also affect design decisions, and they can collectively constrain or drive design decisions.

1. Strategy
Strategic choices are often affect organization design decisions. An organization‘s strategy describes the organization‘s long-term goals and how it plans to achieve those goals. It also specifies how managers resources should be allocated to reach organizational goals(Sims 2002). According to Porter (1980) there are three basic strategies that an organization can adopt. These are cost leadership, differentiation, and focused. Under cost leadership, an organization
16 | P a g e

provides services or products similar to its competitors, but they are produced at a lower cost. This strategy is selected to gain a significant cost advantage over other competitors and pass the savings on to consumers in order to gain a large market share. The strategy is aimed at selling a standardized product that appeals to a customer in a broad market. In a differentiation strategy, the organization seeks to be unique in its industry along factors that are generally valued or favored by buyers. Such organizations typically use a product organization design. A focused strategy is intended to help an organization target a definite niche within an industry, Such organizations utilize any of the organization designs to meet customers‘ preferences (Sims 2002). Augier and Teece (2006) argue that ―know-how, internal structure and human behavior affect the capability of the organization. Organizational capabilities affect strategies which in turn have implications on organizational structure.‖ Another aspect that affects strategy formulation is organizational politics (Pettigrew, 1977). This is more prominent in organizational change literature. Drory and Romm (1990) have described organizational politics as ‗concealed and self-serving‘. However, Pettigrew (1977) and Huff (1988) have recognized organizational politics as a opportunity where the debate of ideas and conciliation of decisions can guide compromise. ―Managers‘ perspectives have broadened, and more information is shared between intra-organizational entities‖ (Huff, 1988).With the understanding of the rationale of a decision, there is reduced resistance to strategies (Huff, 1988). The interrelations between different organizational entities affect strategy formulation. The NGO‘s structure determines how different organizational entities are inter-related. The NGO‘s structure is also affected by the conflict it addresses. Benjamin Gidron et.al (1999) in their paper ―Peace and Conflict Resolution Organizations in Three Protracted Conflicts: Structures, Resources and Ideology‖ observed Peace and Conflict Resolution Organizations and tried to understand the organization structure and strategy.

P/CROs can be characterized as hybrid organizations. They share a number of traits of other NGOs. They are nongovernmental, non-profit distributing, self-governing and are largely maintained by voluntary participation (Salamon and Anheier, 1997). And thus they can be looked at from the viewpoint of organizational theories. Also, ―they generally identify
17 | P a g e

themselves as part of a larger network or movement of peace and reconciliation organizations.‖ (Zald and McCarthy, 1980). As hybrid organizations, P/CROs frequently respond to political, economic, and social changes in their environments by changing their structures and activities. Organizational theories which can be useful in understanding the characteristics of P/CROs center on the relations between the organization and its environment, in particular strategies to mobilize resources and legitimacy, and their effects on organizational structure and activities (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991).

Theories on social movement organizations put emphasis on three important forces that shape the character and activities of such organizations (MeAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, 1996). The one of these factors is mobilizing structure. The mobilizing structure refers to "those agreed upon ways of engaging in collective action which include particular 'tactical repertoires,' particular 'social movement organizational' forms, and 'modular social movement repertoires'" (McCarthy, 1996). Researchers have suggested that there is a restricted repertory of organizational forms available for collective action (Clemens,1996; Tilly, 1978). This restriction arises from institutional rules, which determine what modes of operation are legitimated in addition to the practical needs of an organization to survive, mobilize resources and build a structure wellknown to its members and staff (Gamson, 1975; McCarthy and Zald, 1973; Oberschall, 1978; Tilly, 1978). Therefore, P/CROs might generally shift from informal to formal structures eventually, especially as their reliance on external resources increases. The another factor is framing. framing focuses on the ways in which organizational leaders use values and symbols present in the dominant belief system of their society to socially construct grievances. ―This draws attention to the role of ideology in mobilizing memberships and directing action—not only influencing the number of members mobilized, but the structure and strategy an organization adopts‖ (Benford, 1997; DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Morris and Mueller, 1992; Snow et al., 1986; Snow and Benford, 1988). Framing, has implications for both the degree to which a group formalizes its structure over time as well as the tactics it adopts to pursue its goals. In addition, scholars suggest that ideology strongly influences the types of tactics a group will adopt from among the repertoire available given their financial and membership resource bases (Dalton, 1994; Tilly, 1978).
18 | P a g e

Kathryn T. Theus (1991) in his paper Organizational Ideology, Structure, and Communication Efficacy: A Causal Analysis proved ―Organizational ideology does influence Organizational communication and especially to the extent organizational openness‖ Hence, these literatures lead me to consider the proposition

Proposition 1:

Organizational ideology, politics, strategy and structure have

significant impacts on the NGO’s strategy formulation and implementation.

2. External Environment
An organization‘s environment is made up of institutions or forces that are outside the organization and potentially affect the organization‘s performance. These typically include suppliers, customers, competitors, government regulatory agencies, public pressure groups, and the like. According to Punnoose (2007), ―external environment has implications on the organization‖. The external environment has implications on the design and structure of the organization. Changes in the external environment are dealt with by adjusting the organizational structure (Sims 2002). Benjamin Gidron et.al (1999) states P/CROs, also other NGOs, depend on their environment for resources, and such reliance will affect their independence to pursue their social movement mission and choice of tactics. P/CROs would attempt to mobilize resources that augment and help protect their autonomy, particularly with regard to the political actors they try to influence. P/CROs also need to garner legitimacy to survive. Like most other organizations they do it by accepting dominant institutional norms on suitable organizational forms, and they choose a range of tactics, which enjoys broad legitimacy (Bordt, 1997; Minkoff, 1999). Therefore, P/CROs would develop formal and professional organizational structures and engage in activities that have broad institutional legitimacy. They identify political opportunity structure which affects the activities of this kind of organizations. The political opportunity structure, that focuses on the role that state structure and
19 | P a g e

elite alignments play in an organization's capability to mobilize resources and access political decision making processes This leads me to the proposition that Proposition 2: NGO context affects approaches to strategy formulation and implementation as well as organizational structure and relationships.

Organizational Design and Growth
One of the most significant organizational design frameworks is the one created by Jay Galbraith in 1973. This framework has a number of underlying messages. According to Galbraith (1994) ―there is no single design for success and that an organization that aims to be successful cannot copy the organizational design of other organizations.‖ A firm must employ features that support its strategy and it must change those features as the strategy changes (Mohrman 2007).

Organizational Structure Issues in NGOs
Research has produced a number of common problems and dilemmas that NGOs have experienced because of inappropriate or misaligned structures. One of the most mentioned was that of the decision-making processes. Tensions often occurred between staff and senior managers because of the staff expectations that they would be equal partners in the decisionmaking process (Mukasa, 2006). Another common problem was to do with the governance of the organizations and the relations between board members and staff. These stemmed largely from the boards‘ inability or unwillingness to carry out their responsibilities of governing the organizations. Board members often lacked the time or the expertise to be able to carry out these responsibilities effectively. As a result, senior staffs were often left to make policy decisions with little or no support from board members (Mukasa, 2006). Governance and decision making; The governance picture of many NGOs is quite complex. Most nonprofits are governed by self-perpetuating, largely selfappointing boards of directors. ―Though trustees are not elected by society at large, their
20 | P a g e

essential purpose is to hold an organization in trust for the benefit of society, as specified in its papers of incorporation and grants of tax exemption‖ (Lewis, 2005) Other problem is about staff; such as; recruitment, assignment and layoff as well as human resources development and administration and finally everyday management of staff (Vilain, 2006). NGOs were found to be weak at staff career development. Often organizations lacked a career structure in which staff could develop. In addition they were not good at budgeting for staff training. In situations where the organizations were expanding rapidly, it created problems for many who were unable to keep up with the demands of their work. Not all people working for non-governmental organizations are volunteers. Paid staff members typically receive lower pay than in the commercial private sector. Their members usually do not get paid in any way and only invest little of their leisure in order to fulfill their duties. Sometimes they only have little organizational and professional skills (Mukasa, 2006). The poor quality of training or lack of importance attached to training NGO workers has been discussed elsewhere (Ahmad, 2002) Fund raising activities were often the source of much tension in organizations. The strategies and images used to raise funds from the public were often felt to compromise the nature of the work done by other members of staff. These images often depicted beneficiaries as helpless victims in need of assistance, which other staff felt was inaccurate and lacked respect for the beneficiaries (Mukasa, 2006). The difficulties of managing NGOs with operations in several countries also raised concerns. The difficulties came from the inability to define proper lines of autonomy on policy issues. Field staff often felt isolated unsupported and felt there was a lack of understanding of the issues they were dealing with at field level. In addition, they often found it difficult to be loyal to headquarters. Headquarters staff on the other hand, felt that field staff had too much power which needed to be controlled if all the interests within the organization were to be adequately addressed (Mukasa, 2006). Funding such large budgets demands significant fundraising efforts on the part of most NGOs. Major sources of NGO funding include membership dues, the sale of goods and services, grants from international institutions or national governments, and private donations. Even

21 | P a g e

though the term 'non-governmental organization' implies independence of governments, some NGOs depend heavily on governments for their funding (Wikipedia, 2006). The most commonly identified weaknesses of the sector include; limited financial and management expertise, limited institutional capacity, low levels of self-sustainability, isolation/lack of inter-organizational communication and/or coordination, lack of understanding of the broader social or economic context (Malena, 1995). NGOs can have members but many do not. NGOs may also be a trust or association of members. The organization may be controlled by its members who elect the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees. NGOs may have a delegate structure to allow for the representation of groups or corporations as members. Alternately, it may be a non-membership organization and the board of directors may elect its own successors (Wikipedia, 2006). The structural growth problem; once they are successful, small businesses world-wide commonly face the problems of replacing one-person management (or family management) with a more institutionalized structure. The founder is used to having total control and doing things his or her way. It is difficult to persuade her/him to create independent management or expert roles, or to respect the authority and autonomy of independent managers and experts once they are in place. Their styles, ethos, and values are often severely challenged by the formality and the bureaucratic discipline that is imposed by this volume and variety of external funding from public organizations. The accountability problem; This has both a `real‘ and a `perceived‘ dimension. The `real‘ problem is quite clear and is articulated repeatedly; Who are these people accountable to? (Moore & Stewart, 1998).

Scope of the Future Research
Despite the fact that there are so many issues that are faced by such organizations owing to lack of focus on the organizational structure, attention has hardly ever been paid to this area. Another factor that needs further research is the influence of contextual factors on the structure of ideology driven organizations (NGOs). Perhaps various structural models can be adapted to suit the unique needs of these organizations and this can be an area of further research. One can also look at the unique situation of such organizations that need to evolve with the ideology that they

22 | P a g e

follow. Understanding is required about the extent to which the structure of the organization needs to reflect this evolution.

23 | P a g e

References:
Acker, J. (1995). Feminist goals and organizing process. In M. Feree and P. Y. Martin (eds.), Feminist Organizations, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 137-144. Anand, N and Daft, R L (2006). ‗What is the Right Organization Design?‘ Social Science Research Network Augier, E M and Teece, J D (2006). ‗Understanding Complex Organization: The Role of Know How, Internal Structure, and Human Behavior in the Evolution of Capabilities‘, Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 395-416. Bartlett, CA & Goshal, S 1997, The individualized corporation, Harper Business, New York.

Bartlett 1998, Managing across borders, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Banner, DK 1995, Designing effective organizations: traditional & transformational views, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Benford, R. (1997). An insider's critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 67(4), 409-430. Blau, P. (1955) The Dynamics of bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Bonache, J., Brewster, C. & Suutari, V. (2001) Expatriation: a developing research agenda, Thunderbird International Business Review, 43(1), pp. 3–20.

Bordt, R. (1997). The Structure of Women's Nonprofit Organizations, Indiana University Press, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Bozeman, B., & Strausmann, J. (1984). New directions in public administration. Monterey CA:
24 | P a g e

Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Bushman, M 2007, Functional, Divisional and Matrix Organizational Structures, Associated Content,viewed03September,2010, . Burns, T & Stalker, GM 1961, The management of innovation, Tavistock Publications, London.

Chang, W. (2005) “Expatriate training in international nongovernmental organizations: A Model for Research”, Human Resource Development Review Vol. 4, No. 4 , pp. 440-461 Clemens, E. (1996). Organizational form as frame: Collective identity and political strategy. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, and M. Zald (eds.), The American Labor Movement, 1880-1920: Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 205-226. Daft, R (2007) ‗ Organization Theory and Design‘ South- Western, Cengage Learning Dalton, R. (1994). The Green Rainbow, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Dimaggio, P., and Powell, W. (1991). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In P. Dimaggio and W. Powell (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 63-82.

English, D. J., Upadhyaya, M. P., Litrownik, A. J., Marshall, J. M., Runyan, D. K., Graham, J. C., & Dubowitz, H. (2005). Maltreatment's wake: The relationship of maltreatment dimensions to child outcomes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 597-619

Drory, A. & Romm, C. T. (1990) The definition of organizational politics: a review, Human Relations, 43(1), pp. 1133–1154.
25 | P a g e

Eldos, M P 2007, ‗Organization Structure and Inter-Organizational Dependency: The Environmental Imperative ‗, Icfai Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 22-30. Ferree, M. (1987). The Women's Movements of The United States And Western Europe, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Galbraith, J R 2005, Designing the Customer Centric Organization, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

Gidron, Benjamin; Katz, Stanley; Meyer, Megan; Hasenfeld, Yeheskel; Schwartz, Raviv; Crane, Jonathan K.., Voluntas: ―Peace and Conflict Resolution Organizations in Three Protracted Conflicts: Structures, Resources and Ideology‖ International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit Organizations, Dec1999, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p275, 24p

Gamson, W. (1998). Social movements and cultural change: From contention to action. In M. Giugni, D. McAdam, and C. Tilly (eds.). From Contention to Democracy, Rowman and Littlefield, New York, pp. 57-77.

Gouldner, A. (1954) Patterns of Industrial bureaucracy. New York: Free Press

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books. In Mats Alvesson

(1987). Organizations, Culture, and Ideology, Int. Studies ofMgt. & Org., Vol. XVII, No. 3. pp.
4-18

Hannan, R, et al 2006, ‗Flattening the Organization: The Effect of Organizational Reporting Structure on Budgeting Effectiveness‘. Social Science Research Network Hinings and Greenwood (2002), ―Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory?‖, Administrative Science Quarterly, Sep2002, Vol. 47 Issue 3, p411-421, 11p

26 | P a g e

Hodge, BJ, Anthony, WP & Gales, LM 1996, Organization theory: a strategic approach, 5 ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

th

Hodge, BJ, Anthony, WP & Gales, LM 1996, Organization theory: a strategic approach, 5 ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

th

Huff, A. S. (1988) Politics and arguments as a means of coping with ambiguity and change, in: L. R. Pondy, R. J. Boland & J. Thomas (Eds) Managing Ambiguity and Change, pp. 79–90 (Chichester: John Wiley).

Hunter, J 2002, ‗Improving organizational performance through the use of effective elements of organizational structure‘, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, vol. 15, no. 4/5, pp. xii-xxi).

Hyde, C. (1995). Feminist social movement organizations survive the new right. In M. M. Ferree and P. Y. Martin (eds.), Feminist Organizations, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp. 306-322.

Kathryn T. Theus (1991) Organizational Ideology, Structure, and Communication Efficacy: A Causal Analysis, Journal of Public Relations Research, Volume 3, Issue 1 - 4 January 1991 , pages 133 - 149

Katzenstein, M. F. (1998). Stepsisters: Feminist movement activism in different institutional spaces. The Social Movement Society, edited by David Meyer and Sidney Tarrow, Rowman and Littlefield

27 | P a g e

Katz, D & Kahn, RL 1966, The social psychology of organizations, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Kolodny, HF 1979, ‗Evolution to a matrix organization‘, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 4, pp. 543-553.

Lawrence, P., Lorsch, J. (1967). Differentiation and integration of complex organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, pp 1-47

Mats Alvesson (1987). Organizations, Culture, and Ideology, Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org., Vol.

XVII, No. 3. pp. 4-18

McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, and M. N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 141-151.

McAdam, D. (1996). Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy, and M. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 23-40.

McCarthy, J. D. (1996). Constraints and opportunities in adopting, adapting and inventing. In D. Meyer and S. Tarrow (eds.). The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century, Rowman and Littlefield, New York, pp. 195-216.

Minkoff, D. (1995). Organizing For Equality: The Evolution of Women's and Racial-Ethnic Organizations in America, 1955-1985, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Miller, D., Dorge, C. (1986), Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, pp 539-560

28 | P a g e

Mintzberg, H 1989, Mintzberg on management: inside our strange world of organizations, Free Press, New York.

Mintzberg, 1979, The structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Mohrman, S A 2007, ‗Designing Organizations for Growth: The Human Resource Contribution‘, Human Resource Planning, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 34. Morris, A., and Mueller, C. M. (1992). Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Nalinikumari B and Maclean Richard (2005), ―NGOs: Organizations that are Setting the Next Generation of Regulations‖, Environmental Quality Management, (summer), pp. 1-21.

Oberschall, A. (1978). Theories of social conflict. Annual Review of Sociology, 4,291-315.

Perrow, C. (1967) A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations. Sociological Review, 32, pp 194-209 Peters, J 1993, ‗On structures‘, Management decision, vol. 31, no. 5, pp.60-62.

Americam

Pettigrew, A. M. (1977) Strategy formulation as a political process, International Studies of Management and Organization, 7(2), pp. 78–87.

Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper and Row, New York.

Salamon L and Anheier H (1997), The Nonprofit Sector in the Developing World, Manchester University Press, Manchester, England.
29 | P a g e

Sen Biswajit (1987), ―NGO Self-Evaluation: Issues of Concern‖, World Development, Vol. 15, pp. 161-167.

Sills, D. L. (1957) The Volunteers: Means and Ends in a National Organization, New York: Free Press.

Sims, R (2002) Managing Organizational Behavior, Quorum Books, Westport CT

Snow, D., and Benford, R. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197-217.

Snow, D., Rochford, E. B. et al. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micro mobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51,464-481. Sy, T & D‘Annunzio, LS 2005, ‗Challenges and strategies of matrix organizations: top-level and mid-level managers‘ perspectives‘, Human Resource Planning, vol. 28, no.1, pp. 39-48.

Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Vakil A C (1997), ―Confronting the Classification Problem: Toward a Taxonomy of NGOs‖, World Development, Vol. 25, No. 12, pp. 2057-2070.

Wang, CL & Ahmed, PK 2002, The informal structure: hidden energies within an organisation, Management Research Centre, Wolverhampton Business School Working Paper Series 2002, University of Wolverhampton, Telford, Shropshire.

World Bank (1989), Operational Directive 14.70, Involving Non-Governmental Organizations in Bank-Supported Activities, Washington DC.
30 | P a g e

Zald, M., and McCarthy, J. (1980). Social movement industries: Competition and cooperation among movement organizations. Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, 3,pp 120.

31 | P a g e