Why choose us?

We understand the dilemma that you are currently in of whether or not to place your trust on us. Allow us to show you how we can offer you the best and cheap essay writing service and essay review service.

Nature of Organizational Structure

Nature of Organizational Structure

For this assignment, please read the introduction as well as chapters 1 and 2 of When Teams Collide:
Managing the International Team Successfully as well as the article, “The Cultural Approach to the
Management of the International Human Resource: An Analysis of Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions” which

is attached.

TEXT= Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012), Organizational behavior (1.1 ed.). Nyack, NY: Flat World


This week, I would like you to choose a multinational corporation and discuss their organizational
structure. You may compare/contrast your chosen company to the information that you have read in both
your text as well as the sources above. Does the organizational structure of this corporation work? Are
there things that could be improved? As in past weeks, you are welcome to use the company that you

work for if the information is available to you.

This paper should include 3 pages of content with an additional cover and reference page. This is a total

of 5 pages.

Your paper should be written in proper APA format. This link will take you to the section of the APUS
library that can assist you with your formatting apus.campusguides.com/content.php.


Nature of Organizational Structure

Known as how activities such as coordination, supervision, and allocation are done
towards the goals of an organization, organizational structure is an imperative facet for
multinational cooperates. While small businesses have a flat organizational structure where the
manager can report directly to the president of the organization, multinational cooperates have
echelons of management, which requires a complex organizational structure. The need for good
organizational structure is mandatory for the growth of any company since it is particularly very
crucial for information. According to Lewis (2012) the information is very important for the
progress of an organization. It is from communication that the top authorities get information
about the issues that affects the company. The organizational structure enables the distribution of
authority and evaluation of the employees’ performance and behaviors. Organizational structure
goes with culture of the organization that evaluates interaction of each individual in a business
set up. This paper critically analyzes the organizational structure of Whole Food Market Inc. that
has led to their rapid growth over the last two decades.
Whole Foods Market is a company that was started in Texas, in 1980. At the time, there
were only five natural food supermarkets in USA. By the year 2006 John Mackey, the CEO and
the cofounder of Whole Foods Market, had over 43,000 employees and 260 stores in and outside
the United States (Kowitt, 2014). Whole Foods is a passionate and dynamic company that always
strives to meet the demand for natural food in its most natural state. Currently, it is the largest
natural and organic foods grocer in the United States.
One of the organizational structures that the company has employed is “we”. Whole Food
Market has always been known for its subscription of “we” organizational structure. As most

company put some serious hierarchal order within the organization, whole food market has
allowed the freedom of expression that has been brought by team work. The managers of the
company indulge with the lowest level of staff through team construction. To support the
philosophy of “we”, most of the decision making and planning rarely happens at the corporate
level, rather, at the departmental level or at the individual store (Kowitt, 2014). The formal
structure of whole food market, thus, is not built on centralized decision making and hierarchy.
At Whole Foods market, the general structure is lean, flat, and buoyed by widely decentralized
decision making which is based on the efforts of many people as long one has an idea. All
employees are accountable, and the management accepts their increased enthusiasm to ask any
question, express their points of view, and share necessary information. In the end, peer pressure
is the substitute for bureaucracy in the company, and it has molded loyalty in a way that
bureaucracy cannot.
John Mackey, the CEO, says that the strategy of “we” was aimed at encouraging
collectivism and low power distance. As noted by Bauer and Erdogan (2012) collectivism allows
individuals to work in groups supporting each other in every aspect of their duty. Hence, when
the company makes profits or become successful, it is not the success of the company but the
success of all individuals. Power distance is a vital factor that can either slows down or speeds up
the performance of an organization. Leaders of high power distance organizations believe in
giving juniors detailed instructions with little or no room for proper interpretation. The juniors
are supposed to respect their instruction without any further clarifications. The characteristics of
high power distance cultures, such as inequality in the society, lack of freedom of expression
stifle employee new ideas and creativity. Low power distance in whole food market that allows

any employee to pass information with less centralization and lack of hierarchal authorities
promote interaction of employee and lateral communication (Lewis, 2012).
The strategy of “we” has worked for the Whole Food Market. It can be evidenced from
the rapid growth of the company. Beresford (2014) says that in most cases, the low level
employees have the raw information about the organization and what is currently happening
behind the authorities. Thus, by engaging such workers in a free talk much of information is
received that can that can be used to solve certain problems. It is for the reason of engaging with
every staff member that the company works strictly under team leadership. Working together and
low distance power has supported several innovations as every individual feels free to express
his/ her idea.
However, Dartey-Baah (2013), has criticized the adoption of too much collectivity. He
argues that in a collective society, individuals tend to belong to a certain group and looks after
one another in exchange for loyalty. He says that collective cultures do not usually encourage the
independence and freedom necessary for creativity of organizational members. As a result, they
may fail to foster an environment that cultivates an innovative spirit. Therefore, Whole Food
Market Company should balance between individualism and collectivism since both of them
may be dangerous for the growth of the company as said by Dartey-Baah (2013).



Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2012), Organizational behavior (1.1 ed.). Nyack, NY: Flat World
Beresford, P. (2014). The rich list 2014: from farmers to suppliers, wholesalers to distributors,
supermarket bosses to restaurant chain owners, The Grocer’s first-ever Rich List
represents the whole gamut of food and drink wealth creation. Some are household
names. Others are intensely private. All are immensely rich. Grocer, (8163). 28
Dartey-Baah, K. (2013). The cultural approach to the management of the international human
resource: an analysis of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. International Journal Of
Business Administration, (2), 39.
Kowitt, B. (2014). Whole foods takes over america. (cover story). Fortune, 169(6), 70-77
Lewis, R. D. (2012). When teams collide : managing the international team successfully

All Rights Reserved, scholarpapers.com
Disclaimer: You will use the product (paper) for legal purposes only and you are not authorized to plagiarize. In addition, neither our website nor any of its affiliates and/or partners shall be liable for any unethical, inappropriate, illegal, or otherwise wrongful use of the Products and/or other written material received from the Website. This includes plagiarism, lawsuits, poor grading, expulsion, academic probation, loss of scholarships / awards / grants/ prizes / titles / positions, failure, suspension, or any other disciplinary or legal actions. Purchasers of Products from the Website are solely responsible for any and all disciplinary actions arising from the improper, unethical, and/or illegal use of such Products.