組織結構是一個術語，它可以解釋為如何分配，也就是組織工作和與他人合作。管理體系的構架和模型可以顯示組織的各個部分,空間位置、分離和團聚,聯系信息和各種元素之間的相互關系(Murray & Christison,2009)。組織系統的所有成員開始進行分工從而可以更加密切合作來完成組織的目標的過程管理。

Organizational structure is a term explaining how to divide, group the work and cooperate with others. It is the skeleton frame of the management system and a model which indicates the various parts of the Organization, spatial location, the statement of separation and reunion, contact information and the interrelationship between the various elements (Murray & Christison, 2009). Organizational system shaped when all the members begin in close cooperation with an appropriate division of labour to accomplish the goal of the organization in the process of management. The organizational structure is a dynamic organizational system. The essence of it is a system of division and cooperation in order to realize the strategic goal of the organization. The factors affecting the shaping of the organizational structure are strategy, operating environment, technology and so on. Different organizations have different organizational structure. There are many kinds of organizational structure, such as divisional structure, functional structure, horizontal matrix structure, team-based structure, network structure and so on. In order to adapt to the changing environment, the organization need to adjust the organizational structure all the time (Legerer & Pfeiffer & Schneider & Wagner, 2009).    

The above chart is the old organization chart of Tucker Company. It is a divisional structure. There are three divisions under the chief executive officer. That is to say three vice-presidents report to the CEO directly. Each division has their own function department, such as engineering, accounting, manufacturing department and so on. The division operates independently and is responsible for its profit and loss by itself. The division is a common organizational structure. The departments in it are grouped based on similar organizational outputs. Sometimes it is called self-contained unit structure, a product structure, or program structure. It can group by geography and gives more right to division (decentralization). The laboratory is an exception. Functionally, it goes on to provide service to the three divisions. However, administratively, the manager of laboratory is charged by the manager of manufacturing in the military jet engines.
  The reasons why the laboratory located in the military jet engines may be various. Firstly, Tucker Company may want to pay more attention to military jet engines, and it expects to give military priority to meet its demands and produce the main product in the military jet engines. So it made the laboratory locate in the military jet engines. Secondly, laboratory is a service department. It can provide service to all of the major divisions. In fact, every division needs a laboratory to do its research. However, considering its organizational structure and the resources of the company are limited, Tucker Company established only one laboratory in the military jet engines for the cost principle. It can reduce cost and avoid the waste of staffs and facilities. Thirdly, the work in the manufacturing department of the military jet engines is complicated. It needs more research work, so the organization puts the laboratory in the manufacturing department of the military jet engines and provides more service to it. Generally speaking, organizations enhance its efficiency and improve its function. These are what organizations always pursue (John, 1991).

The conflict between Hodge and Franklin is based on the way the organization is structured rather than personality. The conflict happened between Hodge and Franklin is not a sudden event, it will happen sooner or later. In the past, there was little interdepartmental or interdivisional conflict, because the previous manager of the laboratory carried out his work informally. He didn’t care about the organizational structure. He considered more about the company’s wellbeing, while Hodge is person who pays more attention to organizational structure. As his peers assess him, he is an empire builder who was interested in his own advancement rather than the company’s wellbeing. Therefore, if the organizational structure is not fit for the present environment, it is easy to lead to conflict between departments (Allgaeir & Reid, 2008). As the conflict happened between Hodge and Franklin, it is the result of unreasonable organizational structure rather than personality. In details, functionally, the laboratory offer service to the three divisions. When the three divisions have a request on the laboratory at the same time, there will be a problem of priority. Every division wants to use the laboratory to do its work first. Because all of them operate independently and are responsible for operating results, so every division thinks that their project is important and must be solved immediately, or it will affect its profit. However, administratively, the laboratory is reported to manufacturing department in military jet engines, it must submit to the order of military jet engines division firstly. Undoubtedly, this will produce conflict between the departments from different division.

The conflict between Hodge and Franklin also indicates the disadvantage of divisional structure. Every organizational structure has its advantage and disadvantage. Disadvantage will exceed advantage when the condition changed, and the organization will be faced with reorganization when the conflict caused by the disadvantage reached the peak (Nohria, 1991).When an organization displaces a service department on a wrong position, which will produce an interest conflict between divisions. It will damage the organizational interest. Therefore, it is important for an organization to shape an organizational structure which is right for it and adjust the old organizational structure when the condition changed.

Question 3 Sketch out a new organization chart showing how you would restructure Tucker Company so that the laboratory would provide equal services to all divisions. What advantages and disadvantages do you see in the new structure compared to the previous one? 
New organization chart of Tucker Company and the advantage and the disadvantage of it。The above chart is the new organizational chart of Tucker Company. It indicates that the laboratory becomes an independent department without reporting to all of the three divisions. Administratively, Hodge, the manager of the laboratory, reports to the CEO directly. Functionally, the laboratory gives equal service to all divisions.

The conflict between Hodge and Franklin has reached the peak, so the best way to solve this conflict is to reorganize the organization and shape a new organizational structure. The new organizational structure is fitter for the current situation. It can reduce conflict among divisions. When all the conditions around the organization have changed, includes strategy, operating environment, technology and so on. The organization rearranges the staff and re-deploys resources. This is often called reorganization (Boisot & Child, 1999). Organizations can do its work preferably.

Compared to the previous organizational structure, the mew organizational structure has its advantage and disadvantage. Advantages are as follows. Firstly, the laboratory reports to the chief executive officer directly, so the right to make final decision is charged by the chief executive officer rather than the manager of the manufacturing department in the military jet engines. Therefore, this can reduce the conflict of ranking of priority related to work of the project in respective division. The laboratory is free control of any department, so it can offer equal service to all the divisions. Secondly, the new organizational structure makes the separation of administrate and function, which can easy to distinguish responsibility about the loss caused by delaying. Thirdly, it can produce more benefit for the whole organization. Every division finishes their goal independently and tries its best to accomplish the goal without thinking to weak others. So it can maximize the interests of the organization. Last but not least, the resources of the organization can be used more reasonably. Every coin has two sides. The organizational structure at a special condition is faulty. Accordingly, the new organizational structure also has disadvantage (Alaa, 2009). They can be list as follows. Firstly, the laboratory is at the same level with other divisions, sometimes, the manager of the laboratory may put the request of the manager of the department in the division aside. So it may delay the process of the work. Secondly, the laboratory is independent to every division. In other words, the divisions have no contact with each other. It is obvious that it will lead to poor coordinate across the divisions. Thirdly, the communication between the manager of the laboratory and the manager of the department in the division reduced. Undoubtedly, this will result in the manager of the laboratory has little knowledge on the project of the division. So it is easy to lead to the mistake of the work.
 
Reference
Alaa, G. (2009). Derivation of factors facilitating organizational emergence based on complex adaptive systems and social autopoiesis theories. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 11(1), 19-34.
Allgaeir, Larry & Reid, Grant (2008-11-01). Think horizontal.(organizational structure and team management). In The Conference Board Review. 45 (6), 53(7).http://www.400190.com/Essay_Writing/
Boisot, M., & Child, J. (1999). Organizations as adaptive systems in complex environments: The case in China. Organizational Science, 20(3), 237-252.
John, Sharman (1991-01-01). Inappropriate organizational structure.
Murray, Denise E & Christison, MaryAnn (2009). Organizational structure. Routledge, NY, USA.
Legerer, Paul & Pfeiffer, Thomas & Schneider, Georg & Wagner, Joachim (2009-07-01). Organizational structure and managerial decisions.(Report). In International Journal of the Economics of Business. 16 (2), 147(13).
Nohria, Nitin & Harvard Business School (1991). Note on organization structure (rev). Harvard College, Boston, MA.