Sunday, September 14, 2008

Structuration

The term structuration represents the tension between enabling and constraint, that gives form to an organization . The text cites several examples of balancing these two forces, from the Burley Design Cooperative (p.25) to the Second Vatican Council (p.23) thereby, illustrating that similar tensions define all forms of social organization from systems of government to religion. The degree to which one force is percieved to predominate over the other influences public perception of corporate identity, in ways that have economic consequences. For example, Microsoft is often percieved as a brittle, hierarchical organization, that imposes its vision of personal computing through the use of monopolistic business practices. Although Apple is probably no less hierarchical, it has cultivated the image of an innovative company, responsive to the technological (and emotional?) needs of consumers. By creating an organizational culture that seems to favor enabling attributes such as responsiveness and flexibility, Apple continues to make inroads into formerly Microsoft territory.

2 comments:

Professor Cyborg said...

You provide an interesting comparison between Microsoft and Apple. From people I know who work at those organizations, Microsoft is intensely bureaucratic and Apple really is fairly flat hierarchically. These two approaches to organizing are reflected in the two very different business models and the products the companies produce. What's also different is the importance of the founder in the two organizations. Bill Gates has little to do with the day-to-day running of Microsoft, having turned his attention to this philanthropic work. Steve Jobs is the icon for Apple--the business world knows what happened to Apple when Jobs went away. In a (somewhat) flat organization, it can be easier for one person to have a greater impact because there aren't layers and layers of bureaucracy to get in the way. Thus, Jobs' influence is felt throughout the organization, whereas Gates' absence isn't really noticed.

charlemagne said...

I think its interesting how these two companies gained their respective reputations. Of course advertising is a part of that, but also the products themselves. The product reliability, utility and functionality also contributes to the overall view of the organization, adding emphasis to whatever general opinion about the company there is floating out there.
And on enabling and contraining, that is a part of the way that my company gains its reputation (for better or worse). There are certain things that we are allowed to do for customers, and others we are not per company policy.