1) DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT IN AN ORGANIZATION

Introduction
The parameters of diversity in the 21st century cannot be overemphasized. Therefore diversity
management is becoming increasing important in organizations. This is extensively important
because twenty-first century organizations are strictly challenged by diversity in many arenas.
Therefore, there is a need to understand the term diversity management and its benefits to
organizations.

Definitions
Several authors have defined diversity management in different ways, among others are: Ting
Toomey & Chung (2005) defined diversity management as Acquiring the necessary knowledge
and dynamic skills to manage such difference in organization appropriately and effectively. This
definition has failed to address to what contents is this knowledge being assessed as appropriate
or efficient, also in what terms are we defining this knowledge and skill? The drawback from
this author generated questions as who is managing diversity and at what level is being managed
and according to what best interest However, the author identified the dynamism in the
contemporary world business.

Bengt & Virean (2004) defined diversity management as strategic process to manage a diverse
workforce including the fight against stereotype, prejudice and kinds of discrimination due to
individual perception and assumptions The definition has failed to identified the different
strategies compatible to different organizations, the author dwell much on assumptions than
practical. Though, the definition analyzed many assumptions on individuals diversification in all
life ramifications.

1
Another definition by Stoner & Russel (2007) as the process of creating organizational culture
in which workforce differences are understood and valued to which individual has the
opportunity to be fully utilized. The definition has established a frame-work to which a new set
of core values governing the role of individuals differences, also, focusing on organizational
culture. However, this definition may not be practical because human beings are complex in
nature and their individualities cannot be fully utilized.

Practical Benefits
Furthermore, the diversity management has some practical benefits in organizations world
wide such that, management becomes more efficiently and effectively. Firstly, employees are
highly motivated in such a way that companies that used diverse workplace recognized cultural
and background differences, which hence results to a positive effect in the organization.

Also, heterogeneity and multicultural organization has the potential of a higher creativity and
innovation. Creativity and innovation are fostered by diversity (Harvard & Allard 2002). For
instance, processes are improved; product design becomes ease and advertisement is highly
effective among others. Also, diversity management leads to problems solving and increases
organizational revenue both in domestic and foreign markets. A well diversified organization has
a broader and Richer knowledge to which problems are solved through strategic decision
making. The presence of minority views improved the quality of decision making process so
that one gets more alternatives to problems solving (Cox 2001).

Conclusion
In conclusion, diversity management which practically assumed each individual as a cultural
entity on the core value of individualism. This concept is always a pragmatic business approach
which therefore, enables organizational managers or leaders to view employees as an assets that
determines the overall success of the organization or otherwise.

2
 2. THE FUNCTIONS OF MANAGER AND/OR IN RELATION TO A LEADER.

Introduction
The term management and leadership are viewed differently by different authors, some
seeing them as synonymous, some others seeing them as extremely term, also, some believed
and stood at the (complimentary). This section elaborates the different views of management and
leadership looking at the similarities and their differences.

Definitions
Kotter (2001) defines manager as those people to whom this management task is assigned to
through planning & budgeting, organizing and staffing, and problem solving and controlling.
Leaders on the other hand set a direction, align people, motivate and inspire. This author has
identified the function of each management and leadership, it has given a clear indication that
management is through managers while leadership is through leader. However, the author lacks
some ingredient of interconnection between both terms since each term cannot operate
independently.

Another definition by Kotterman (2006) that management is the process of implementing the
vision and establishment of policy and procedures to implement this vision while leadership
communicates the vision, mission and direction. This definition covers a vast range by
interconnecting the terms. However, the author used implementation in both management
process and leadership, thereby bringing controversies in the organization.

Another definition by Schrender et al cited in Ann Et al (2014) that leadership is a process,

entails influence occur with a group setting and involve shared goals or vision. This definition
has not given a clear understanding of what types of influence, positive or negative within the
organization. This definition has distinct features of commensuration leadership into
management by pointing out how vision and goals are being shared.

3
 Through intellectual stimulation, the leader arouses followers to think in new ways and
emphasizes problem solving skills and the use of reasoning prior to taking action (Hater & Bass,
cited in Millissa 2011). In addition, leadership with high levels of needs supplies fit will be more
motivated to display transformational leaders behavior because they feel a sense of commitment
to the organization (Rusell 2013). Management and leadership therefore need to be integrated so
that managers can inspire, motivate and challenge employees (2010).

Management and leadership in organization

Scope Management Leadership

Establishment Budgeting & planning Set directions
Displaying vision & goals
Developing strategies to achieve the vision
Human Resource Organizing & staffing Align organization
Implementing the vision Communicate the vision
Execution Processes control Inspires and motivates
Identify problems
Approaches to solve the identified problems
Outcome Protecting the future Managers Approaches to improving labour relations &
productivity
Source: (Gonzalex Guillen 2011; Kotterman 2006)

Conclusion
Conclusively, organizations of nowadays need both effective leaders and managers to operates
successfully (Kristina 2009). In this manner, whilst some similarities (both influencing
employees) some strictly different (management is more often oriented while leadership is more
considered inspirational). For the purpose of this study management and leadership are
somewhat differently.

3. THE DETERMINATION OF OPTIMUM ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

4
Introduction
The role of organization structure cannot be overemphasized. It performs some crucial roles in
the successfulness and the achievement of organizational goals. Every organization (small or
large) exists to achieve some certain basic goals (Pathfinder International 2010). Theses goals are
disintegrated into tasks as the basis for jobs. These jobs are further subgrouped into
departments. These departments are also characterized into sales, marketing, advertising,
manufacturing, accounting/finance etc. All these are linked together to form organization
structure (Nelson & Quick 2011). This section tends to determine the optimum choice of
organization structure in relation to the types of organization.

Definitions
The choice of organization structure company adopts depends on several factors. For example, it
as been argued that organizations strategy will strongly influence organizations structural
configuration (Lynch cited in Neil et al 2010). The definitions shall base on the role of
organizational structure in modern business, the choice and factors that determine the choice as
appropriate. According to Nedal et al (2013) organizational structure refers to the way
organization arranges people and jobs so that it work can be performed and goals can be
achieved. This definition identified people and jobs in a separate sheet making it to be logical to
identify organization strategic behaviour. However, the author did not clearly defined
organization structure in term of formal or informal set-up and therefore limited in applicability
in the contemporary businesses.

Another definition by Tatum (2009), that organization structure is like glass or perspective
through which individuals sees there organization and its environment. This definition is unique
because it considered and recognized diversity management in the choice of determining
organization structure. This can perhaps, leads to effective and efficient in the organization.
However, it failed to show how resources can be allocated which could therefore be misleading.

In addition, to Lewis (2008) states and defined organization structure to consists of activities
such as tasks allocation, coordinating and supervision which are directed towards the

5
achievement of organizational objectives. This definition is quiet elaborative and captured the
roles and responsibilities of management in determining organizational structure. Controversy,
the author contradicts management in term of organization structure and structure to be adopted
will be dicey.

Types of organizational structure

Functional organization: This type of organization structure is applicable in such a way
that individuals in the organizational are group according to the function each performs.
E.g. individual responsible for purchasing goods and services for the organization are in
the purchasing department, those responsible for market and customers are in the
marketing department etc.

Matrix structure organization: This is a type of organizational structure that group the
companys employees into functions and products. This is so, that said structure can
combine the best of both separate structure, in order to gain advantage of the strength, the
matrix organization used team of employees ti get work done as well as make up for the
weakness of functional and decentralized form (Lewis & Madon 2004).

Centralized structure: This type consists of several layers of management within the
organization in order to maintain high level of authority. This authority has the power to
take organizational decision concerning the business activities. Take for instance, the
organization focus on top-down management, they communicate to middle managers,
who then tell the top managers and to the staff on what to do.

Network structure: This is a multi-site organizational structure where multiple programs

often use differently across geographical areas. This is mostly use by networks.

Decision on what organization structure to be adopted

It is notable to recall that organization structure is dynamic not static because of the constant
change in the organization environment factors. The biggest question here is what is the best
form of organization structure and why (Grunig et al 2002). Despite these new perspectives on

6
structure, bureaucracy remains one of the most dominant forms of organizing and is often used in
conjunction with other organizational forms (Miller cited in Derina 2002)

According to Robbins (2000), the factors that determine organizational structure are: the natural
selection model holds, thus, the environment tends itself, secondly, internal consistency
structural characteristics that are in line with their environment. Thirdly is the number of viable
configurations in the organization. To Hall (2002) identified technology to be one of the
influencing factor he stated Not only structure affected by technology employed, but the success
or effectiveness of the organization is related to the fit between technology and structure this
technologies allowing organization (network structure) to communicate at great distances and at
asynchronous times, therefore no need for people working together to be in the same place.
Miller cited in Hyo Sook Kim 2005) put fourth four variations of work distribution based on time
and place of work)

1) Central office; work accomplished by people in the same time at the same place
2) Telecommuting; work accomplished at the same time but in different places.
3) Flextime; work done at the same place at different times
4) Virtual office; work done at different times and different places using multiple
information and computer technologies.

Because of its critical role in support of the day-to-day operations and strategic positioning of the
modern business enterprise, information technology has become a ubiquitous and increasingly
significant of most organization (Neil et al 2010). Daft (2003) stated significant changes are
occurring in organization in response to changes in society at large. He further noted that
mechanism can only be effective if and only if environment has high degree of certainty,
technology tends to be routing, organizations are operating in a large scale and employees are
handle like other resources. In this case, internal structures tend to be vertical, functional and
perhaps, bureaucratic.

Organizational structure is partly affected by organizational external environment (Nahm et al

2003). Other theories and research observed that organizations with high reliance on transactions
on the bases of stable market, perhaps, be effective in the rapidly changing environment.

7
However, the more certain the environment, the more likely organization tends towards a
centralized hierarchical structure). Whereas organization that does not depends on constant
environmental factor could be effective in decentralized organization structure (Lawrence &
Lorsh cited in Nahm et al 2003).

To sum-up all these theories, the factors considered to influenced the decision of organization
structure are environmental paradigm, specialization, administrative intensity, external
communication, internal communication, functional differentiation and compositions,
technologies, managerial attitudes towards change, managerial tenure, professionalism, nature
formalization, centralization of authorities, layers of hierarchy, vertical differentiation,
organization, size, strategy and philosophy. The consequences of wrong allocation of
organization structure; low productivity, unequal workload, lines and communication unclear,
inadequacies in team work, slow decision making and inadequate in innovations.

Coca-Cola organization structure

Coca-Cola is Tall in terms of organizational complexity. Coca-Cola is controlled through a

vertical hierarchy, with decision-making authority residing with the companys upper
management. Daily and routine decisions are made by the line managers at the middle level
(Narayan, cited in Jesse 2014).

The companys operations reach over 200 countries worldwide, with six geographic operating
segments. Coca-Colas head office is responsible for providing the company with an overall
direction and support to the regional structure. The companys Executive Committee makes key
strategic decisions for the company. Each division of the company has a marketing manager,
public affairs director, finance director, etc. When one of these divisions is planning to do
something, an advertising campaign for example, the division has to communicate with their
superiors to get approval. Since the companys hierarchy is so tall, communication has to travel
back to corporate headquarters in the U.S, where the Executive Committee has the final decision
making power for activities the divisions have proposed. Below is an organizational chart of the
company (Gilhuly, 2014).

8
Unilever organization structure
Today, Unilever is one of the world leaders in production of FMCG goods. The company
products are sold to more than 170 countries with 160 million purchase units worldwide using a
Unilever product, and on any given day over two billion customers enjoy the company brands.
Unilever products are broken down into 4 product categories: personal care products, household
maintenance products, food products, and refreshment production of FMCG goods.

The company organization has a matrix structure, with the following basic departments by
function: sales function is represented by Customer Development Department, supply function is
represented by Supply Chain Department, marketing function is represented by Brand
Development and Brand Building Departments, and other functions, in line with Unilever model,
are instrumental and include the following departments: Human Resources, Finance, IT, Legal,
and PR. Each Department is headed by a Vice President.

9
CONCLUSION

From all the above analysis of organization structure, it is necessary to note that the role and the
importance of organizational structure cannot be overemphasized. The strategic choice of
organization structure determines the achievement of such organization whether large or small
business. Therefore, choosing the right organization structure given some consideration is one of
the most important decisions in the company. There is no one right way to design
organizational structure because organization structure is dynamic not static. There are no
universal organization principles which are good for all cases.

10
REFERENCES

Ann, LN Chapman David Johnson Karen Kilner, 2014, Leadership styles used by senior
medical leaders, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 27 Iss 4 pp. 283 298
Bengt Ferlenus & Viveca, FJ 2004, Diversity Management New Paradigm, Kristanstad
University

11
Cox, Tayler 2001, Creating the Multicultural Organization. A strategy to capturing the
diversity. San Franscisco, USA. Jossey Bass

Derina, H 2002, The Effects of a Divisional zed and Decentralized Organizational Structure on
a Formal Internal Communication Function in a South African organization, Journal of
Communication Management, Vol. 6 Iss 4 pp. 323 - 339
Gilhuly, J 2014, Coca-Cola Organizational Complexity.
http://juliegilhuly.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/coca-cola-organizational-complexity/
Gonzlez, TF& Guilln, M 2002, Leadership Ethical Dimension: A requirement in TQM
implementation, The TQM Magazine, vol. 14 Issue 3, pp. 150 164.
Grunig, LA Grunig, JE & Dozier, DM. 2002, Excellent Public Relations and Effective
Organizations, a study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hall, RH 2003, Organization: Structure, Processes and Outcomes (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harvard & Allard 2002, Understanding & Managing Diversity Rending cases & experience.
New Jersey, prentice Hall
Hyo sook kim, 2005, Organizational Structure and Internal Communication as Antecedents of
Employee Organization Relationships in the context of Organizational Justice a
multilevel analysis; dissertation submitted to the faculty of the graduate school of the
university of maryland, college park,

Jesse, GM 2014, Management styles & Leadership practices at Coca-Cola. Kabarak

University Nakuru Town Campus
Kotter, J P 2001, What Leaders really do?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 Issue 11, p.85-
96

Kotterman, J 2006, Leadership vs Management: Whats the Difference? Journal for Quality
& Participation, Vol. 29 Issue 2, p.13-17

Kristina, GR 2009, Leadership Vs Management. Comparative Extension Service;

University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, LEXINGTON, KY 40546

Lewis, D 2003, Theorizing the Organization and Management of Non-governmental

Development Organizations towards a Composite Approach, Public Management
Review, Vol. 5 Issue 3, pp. 325344.

12
Lewis, D & Madon, S 2004, Information Systems and Nongovernmental Development
Organizations: Advocacy, Organizational Learning, and Accountability, the Information
Society, 20: 117126
Millissa, FY Cheung Chi-Sum Wong 2011, Transformational Leadership, Leader Support, and
Employee Creativity, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 Iss 7
pp. 656 - 672)
Nahm, AY Vonderembse, MA & Koufteros, XA 2003, The Impact of Organizational
Structure on Time-based Manufacturing and Plant Performance Journal of Operational
Management, 21, 281-306.
Neil F. Doherty Donna Champion Leitao Wang 2010, An Holistic Approach to Understanding
the Changing Nature of Organizational Structure, Information Technology & People,
Vol. 23 Iss 2 pp. 116 135

Nedal, M Elsaid1, Ahmed, E Okasha & Abdalla, AA 2013, Defining and Solving the
Organizational Structure Problems to Improve the Performance of Ministry of State for
Environmental Affairs Egypt; International Journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, Volume 3, Issue 10, October 2013 1 ISSN 2250-3153

Nelson, DB & Quick, JC 2011, Understanding organizational behavior Mason, OH: South-
Western Cengage Learning
Pathfinder International 2010, Organizational Structure Membership and Volunteers. Module 2

Robbins, SP 2000, Organizational Theory: Structure, design, and application. (3rded.).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Russell, PG 2013, The Relationship between Leader Fit and Transformational Leadership,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 55 73
Stoner, CR & Russell-Chapin, LA 2007, Creating a Culture of Diversity
Management: Moving from awareness to action. Business Forum, 22 (2-3),
6-12.

Tatum, CB 2009, Organizing to Increase Innovation in the Construction Firm, Journal of

Construction Engineering and Management, 115(4), 602 - 617.
The Coca-Cola Company: (2015). Mission, Vision & Values. Retrieved November 25, 2015
from: http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/mission-vision-values.
TinToomey, S & Chung, LC 2005, Understanding Intercultural Communication Los Angeles:
Rex bury publishing company.
. (2010), Putting the leadership back into management, Strategic Direction, Vol. 26 Iss 9 pp. 10
- 12

13