The order behind the organizational structure of large technology companies, and what we can learn from it

Posted by Mereo
at Wednesday February 24th, 2016.

We are aware that that the organizational structure adapts to the reality of each company as the context in which it was created. This article discusses some of the peculiarities behind the organizational charts of large tech firms, sucha as, Google, Oracle, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple.

Organizational charts drawing is a facilitator by the visual aspect, since it helps to make clear the hierarchical levels of an organization. It also reveals the information flows, so that the objectives are achieved efficiently.

The chart below was made by Manu Cornet  and represents the reality and the differences between the models adopted by each company.

organizational_charts

The organizational framework setting of technology companies presents an unique logic, and we can seize this feature to our reality. Amidst the estimated decrease of 3.5% of Brazil’s economy in 2016 the re-engineering of processes and functions in organizations becomes a survival issue in many cases.

We can observe a wide variation between the existing models, however, the purpose of this post is not to make an analysis of each, but of how we can “create our own rules” when it comes to structure  optimization.

Microsoft is a case study in what regards to strategic changes. Manu initially portrayed it’s chart with a series of isolated pyramids that operated according to their own “laws” and had pistols pointed to each other, indicating the high level of competition among the businesses units.

In 2013 the eight divisions were realigned in four that no more compete against each other, the new strategy seeks to align the company in a single focus and to speed up actions around common goals, facing the divisional guidelines from a holistic perception.

 

microsoftnew-org-chart

Structuring the organizational framework is fundamental to the success of large and small enterprises, this action, however, must be responsible in order to ensure the functioning of the processes.

We observed that the so called ‘pivotings’ are a part of the “startup world”, though it still uncommon to occur in large corporations. A successful example is I.B.M that in 2004 refocused its strategy with the decision to leave the personal computer business to focus on corporate technology services.

These are hybrid and multifunctional organizations, with more than 90,000 employees, such as Microsoft, that is facing the challenge of defining the most appropriate structure to their reality. What do your company may have to do with it? Perhaps the same pains, or perhaps the conflicts that these have experienced at some point. We must inspire us in how these companies continue always taking new directions.

Many times we are afraid to change direction even when it seems that this should be done we resist for fear of the unexpected. A strategic change touches every part of the organization and represents a complex challenge.

Mereo develops projects designed to suit the structure of your company to a better market reality. We set for our customers, the appropriate structure that ensures productivity of processes and consequent results improvement.

Previous Post
Next Post

Related Posts

Share

LinkedIn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep updated!

Get our news