UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE LEVELS ON PRODUCTIVITY AT IMAM REZA MEHR FUND IN KHUZESTAN PROVINCE

Transcription

1 UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE LEVELS ON PRODUCTIVITY AT IMAM REZA MEHR FUND IN KHUZESTAN PROVINCE Ebrahim Tajipour Department of Management, Science and research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran Kheyrollah Sarboland Department of Management, Parsabad Moghan Branch Islamic Azad University, Parsabad Moghan, Iran Nasrin Khodabakhshi Department of Management, Khalkhal Branch Islamic Azad University, Khalkhal, Iran Abstract The main focus of this study is understanding the impact of organizational structure levels on productivity in Imam Reza Mehr Fund in Khuzestan province. We has highlighted three component of Organizational structure levels (Formalization, Complexity, and Centralization) and their impact on The population was 72 employees of Imam Reza Mehr Fund. We determined the amount of the sample size with the used Census sampling method which have been selected through the simple random sampling method. To gathering of data, we used two questionnaires. In order to analyze the data resulted from collected questionnaires deductive and descriptive statistical methods are used. We use two-way variance analysis to test the hypothesis of the research. Findings show that there is a statistically significant difference in impact of organization structure (Formalization, Complexity, and Centralization) different levels on. Keywords: Formalization, Complexity, Centralization, productivity, organization structure INTRODUCTION Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical power structures to industrial structures and today's post-industrial structures. The early theorists of organizational structure, Taylor, Fayol, and Weber "saw the importance of structure for effectiveness and efficiency and assumed without the slightest question that whatever structure was needed, people could fashion accordingly. Organizational structure was considered a matter of choice... When in the 1930s, the rebellion began that came to be known as human relations theory, there was still not a denial of the idea of structure as an artifact, but rather an advocacy of the creation of a different sort of structure, one in which the needs, knowledge, and opinions of employees might be given greater recognition." However, a different view arose in the 1960s, suggesting that the organizational structure is "an externally caused phenomenon, an outcome rather than an artifact" (Mohr, 1982). In the 21st century, organizational theorists such as Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) are once again proposing that organizational structure development is very much dependent on the expression of the strategies and behavior of the management and the workers as constrained by the power 73

2 distribution between them, and influenced by their environment and the outcome (Lim et al, 2010). Organizational structures are sets of relations between the roles of an organization. A typical abstract example of such structures is the so-called vertical differentiation or authority structure of organizations, usually considered to be a hierarchy structure. These abstract types of structures are traditionally studied in the branch of sociology known as mathematical sociology (Grossi et al, 2007). Organizational structure is determined, fundamental mission, fundamental management, the overall mission, the communication and the decision (Kazemi, 2004). It has three dimensions as has been laid down by Robins they are Formalization: The standard refers to the amount of jobs within the organization. The most important formalization techniques are selection process, requirements, roles, procedures and policies, and practices for employees to prove their loyalty and their commitment to obey (Robins, 2008). Complexity: The breakdown of the organization implies that there are three separate horizontal and vertical resolution based on the geographic areas studied (Robins, 2008). Centralization: Power density for a formal decision to focus on individual, unit or organizational level to be focused and to allow employees to participate in decisions that cites at least (Talebbidokhti & Anvari, 2004). In business literature and research, productivity has usually been discussed in terms of hypothetical variables that could improve the outcome. For instance, researchers (1993) reported that employees with higher levels of job satisfaction and skills directly related to their jobs had significantly higher productivity ratings than their co-workers. Another study revealed that practices such as performance appraisal had a strong effect on In addition, training programs for new employees increased their While Grosskopf, Margaritis and Valdmanis (2001) evaluated effects of teaching on hospital Hall (2003) assessed the contribution of knowledge and skill, and factors such as organizational trust and commitment on nursing productivity Curtin (1995) described how patient classification could be used to improve staff However a concept analysis done by Holcomb, Hoffart and Fox (2002) revealed the complexity of the concept and its measurement (Atafar et al, 2013). Productivity is the ratio of output to inputs in production; it is an average measure of the efficiency of production. Efficiency of production means production s capability to create incomes which is measured by the formula real output value minus real input value. Increasing national productivity can raise living standards because more real income improves people's ability to purchase goods and services, enjoy leisure, improve housing and education and contribute to social and environmental programs. Productivity growth also helps businesses to be more profitable (Saari, 2006). Labor productivity is the value of goods and services produced in a period of time, divided by the hours of labor used to produce them. In other words labor productivity measures output produced per unit of labor, usually reported as output per hour worked or output per employed person (OECD, 2008). At the present, productivity is not only a criterion but also a culture and an insight to labor and life and its development is considered as the main origin of economic actualization. In accordance with the Hersi and Goldsmith model has been applied in the essays, productivity has six dimensions: - Skill (power to accomplish a duty), 74

3 - Intuition and recognition (clear acceptance of type, place and modality of accomplishment), - Organizational support (support is needed by the personnel to complete efficiency), - Motivation (desire and interest to fulfill duties), - Feedback (judicial procedure on modality of labor), - Credibility (appropriate and lawful decision of manager), - Environment (extra organizational effective factors) (Khaki, 1997). The main focus of this study is understanding the impact of organizational structure levels on productivity in Imam Reza Mehr Fund in Khuzestan province. We has highlighted three component of Organizational structure levels (Formalization, Complexity, and Centralization) and their impact on The purposes of this study were: - Understanding the impact of Formalization different levels on productivity - Understanding the impact of Complexitydifferent levels on productivity - Understanding the impact of Centralizationdifferent levels on productivity METHODOLOGY This has done in Imam Reza Mehr Fund in Khuzestan province and the population was 72 of employees. We determined the amount of the sample size with the used Census sampling method which have been selected through the simple random sampling method. To gathering of data, we used two questionnaires. The organizational structure questionnaire according to Robins (1991) with 24 items, HR productivity according to Hersi and Goldsmith Model with 31 items. Questionnaires reliability was estimated by calculating Cronbach s Alpha. Table 2 shows the number of question and Cronbach s Alpha for each dimensions of research. Table 1 shows the number of question and Cronbach s Alpha for each dimensions: Dimensions No. of Items Alpha organizational structure productivity In order to analyze the data resulted from collected questionnaires deductive and descriptive statistical methods are used. We use two-way variance analysis to test the hypothesis of the research. In order to determine the differences between the variables of the study, the SPSS tool has been used. RESULTS A. Demographic Results The data gathered from questionnaires shows that, 94.3 percent are male and 5.7 percent are female. The responder s degree is 5.7 percent Diploma or under, 11.4 percent Associate Degree, 63.3 percent Bachelor and 18.6 percent MA or upper. It means that the most of the responder have bachelor degree. (Table 2) Table2- Responders degree Valid Degree Frequency Percent Diploma or under Associate Degree Bachelor MA or upper Total

4 Table 3 shows age of the responders percent of responders have under 30 years old, and 50 percent have between 31-40, 18.6 percent 41-50, and finally 10 percent have more than 51 years of work experience. It shows that most the personnel age are less than 40. Table 3- Age of the responders Valid Frequency Percent under More than Total From the precedence point of view about 7.1 percent less than 5; 37.1percent have between 6-10; 21.4 percent have between 11 15; and finally 34.3 percent have experience more than 15 years. It shows that all the employees have good experience. Table 4- Experience of the responders Valid Frequency Percent Less than More than Total B. Hypotheses Results In this paper we have three main hypothesis. The statistical way of analysis of hypotheses is two ways, H 1 is acceptance of hypothesis and H 0 is rejecting of hypothesis. In other words, it means that H 1 has positive meaning and H 0 has negative meaning. First Sub-hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference in impact of formalization different levels on H 1.There is a statistically significant difference in impact of formalization different levels on H 0.There is not a statistically significant difference in impact of formalization different levels on Table 5: Results Two-way analysis of variance, the first sub-hypothesis Dependent Variable: Productivity Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Formal Informal Formal* Informal a. R Squared =.330 (Adjusted R Squared = -.050) 76

5 According to Table (5), the evaluated p-value is in significant level of So, the statistically significant difference in impact of formalization different levels on productivity in the p 0.05 had been significant, and we can accept H 1, and says that there is a statistically significant difference in impact of formalization different levels on Second Sub-hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference in impact of complexity different levels on H 1.There is a statistically significant difference in impact of complexity different levels on H 0.There is not a statistically significant difference in impact of complexity different levels on Table 6: Results Two-way analysis of variance for the second hypothesis Dependent Variable: Productivity Source Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Geographic Vertical Horizontal Geographic * Vertical Geographic * Horizontal Vertical * Horizontal Geographic * Vertical * Horizontal a. R Squared =.562 (Adjusted R Squared = -.008) According to Table (6), the evaluated p-value is in significant level of So, the statistically significant difference in impact of complexity different levels on productivity in the p 0.05 had been significant, and we can accept H 1, and says that there is a statistically significant difference in impact of complexity different levels on Third Sub-hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference in impact of centralization different levels on H 1.There is a statistically significant difference in impact of centralization different levels on H 0.There is not a statistically significant difference in impact of centralization different levels on Table 7: Results Two-way analysis of variance for the third hypothesis Dependent Variable: Productivity Source Squares df Mean F Sig. Square Centralization Decentralization Centralization * Decentralization a. R Squared =.249 (Adjusted R Squared = -.127) According to Table (7), the evaluated p-value is in significant level of So, the statistically significant difference in impact of centralization different levels on productivity in 77

6 the p 0.05 had been significant, and we can accept H 1, and says that there is a statistically significant difference in impact of centralization different levels on Main hypothesis: There is a statistically significant difference in impact of organization structure different levels on productivity H 0 : There is not a statistically significant difference in impact of organization structure different levels on H 1 : There is a statistically significant difference in impact of organization structure different levels on productivity Table 8: Results Two-way analysis of variance for the main hypothesis Dependent Variable: productivity Source Squares df Mean F Sig. Square Formalization Complexity Centralization Formalization * Complexity Formalization * Centralization Complexity * Centralization Formalization * Centralization * Complexity a. R Squared =.865 (Adjusted R Squared = ) According to Table (8), the evaluated p-value is in significant level of So, the statistically significant difference in impact of organization structure different levels on productivity in the p 0.05 had been significant, and we can accept H 1, and says that there is a statistically significant difference in impact of organization structure different levels on Findings show that there is a statistically significant difference in impact of organization structure different levels on References 1. Atafar A., Vazifeh D.Q., Zamanzadeh D. M., (2013), Factor analysis of Human Resources Productivity in Moghan s agro-industry Company, International Journal of Engineering, Science and Mathematics, March Issue 1 Volume 2 2. Begley, T., Boyd, D., (2007). The relationship between organizational structure and entrepreneurial culture at the University of British Darham Journal of the National Entrepreneurship, third year, No.59, p D., Royakkers L., Dignum F. (2007), Organizational structure and responsibility an analysis in a dynamic logic of organized collective agency, Springer Artif Intell Law 15: Kazemi B., (2011). Staff issues management, Governmental Training Center Education Publication, Tabriz, 5. Khaki, Gh.,(1997), Introduction to Productivity, Management, Sayeha Publications Cultural Institute 78

7 6. Lim, M., G. Griffiths, and S. Sambrook. (2010). Organizational structure for the twenty-first century. Presented at the annual meeting of The Institute for Operations Research and The Management Sciences, Austin. 7. Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 8. OECD (2008). Compendium of Productivity Indicators OECD. 9. Robbins, S., (2008). Organization theory (structure, design and applications), Translated by seyed Mehdi Alvani and Hassan DanaeeFard, Tehran University Press. 10. Saari, S. (2006, Productivity. Theory and Measurement in Business, Espoo, Finland: European Productivity Conference. 11. Taleb Bidokhti, A., Anwar, A., (2004). Creativity and innovation in persons and organizations, Tadbir monthly, year 15, No. 152, 79