Organisational Cohesion: Structural Influences

Hopefully by now you have come to appreciate that at FFC we believe that cohesion within and between teams is not just a desirable attribute but a critical factor for organisational success. Organisational structures profoundly impact cohesion, affecting everything from communication to decision-making and overall performance. This article explores how different organisational structures influence cohesion, focusing on the visible frameworks and the underlying dynamics that shape team interactions. By understanding these factors, you can make informed decisions that foster unity and drive your organisation forward.

The Role of Organisational Structure

Organisational structure serves as the blueprint for how your company operates. It defines roles, responsibilities, communication channels, and the decision-making hierarchy (Mullins & Christy, 2016). Traditional structures, such as hierarchical models, offer clear lines of authority and specialised roles, creating a stable environment where everyone knows their place. On the other hand, more contemporary structures, like matrix or flat models, encourage flexibility and cross-functional collaboration, allowing organisations to adapt quickly to changing circumstances.

However, the impact of organisational structure extends beyond these tangible elements. The way a company is structured also affects the emotional and relational dynamics within teams, which are crucial for achieving and maintaining cohesion.

Unseen Dynamics: The Underlying Forces of Structure

While organisational structure provides the visible framework for how work is organised, the invisible dynamics that develop within this framework are equally important. These dynamics, shaped by organisational culture, individual personalities, and collective emotions, can either support or undermine cohesion.

For example, in a rigid hierarchical structure, employees may unconsciously internalise feelings of inferiority or resentment towards those in power. These emotions can manifest as passive resistance or disengagement, gradually eroding team cohesion (Hirschhorn, 1997). In contrast, a flat structure might inadvertently create a power vacuum, where individuals or sub-groups compete for influence, leading to subtle but significant friction within teams.

Understanding and managing these underlying dynamics is crucial for maintaining cohesion. Leaders who are attuned to both the structural and emotional aspects of their organisations are better equipped to address potential issues before they escalate, ensuring that their teams remain cohesive and focused on their goals.

Hierarchical Structures: Balancing Order and Engagement

In hierarchical organisations, authority typically flows from the top down, creating clear power dynamics that significantly influence team cohesion. On the positive side, a well-defined chain of command provides stability and predictability—critical factors in industries where precision and control are paramount. However, this same clarity can lead to disengagement if lower-level employees feel disconnected from decision-making processes or perceive a lack of recognition for their contributions. When team members feel alienated, cohesion can deteriorate (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005).

To counteract these potential downsides, it is essential to balance maintaining order with fostering employee engagement. Providing opportunities for employees at all levels to participate in decision-making can mitigate feelings of exclusion and strengthen the bonds within teams. This approach can lead to a more engaged workforce that is aligned with the organisation's goals.

Flat Structures: Promoting Inclusiveness with Care

Flat organisational structures aim to minimise hierarchical levels, promoting equality and inclusiveness within teams. In such environments, communication is often more open, and employees may feel empowered to express their ideas without fear of negative repercussions. This culture of psychological safety is a key driver of cohesion, as it encourages collaboration and mutual support among team members (Edmondson, 2019).

However, the absence of a clear hierarchy can sometimes lead to confusion and conflict. When authority is diffused, the lack of defined leadership can result in power struggles, subtly undermining team cohesion. As an executive, it is crucial to ensure that, even within flat structures, roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated to avoid these potential pitfalls. This clarity will help maintain cohesion while still promoting the inclusiveness that flat structures are designed to foster.

Flexibility and Cohesion in Matrix Structures

Matrix and other flexible structures combine elements of hierarchical and flat models, offering the adaptability needed to respond to complex, dynamic environments. These structures can enhance cohesion by fostering a shared sense of purpose and collaboration across different teams and departments (Burns & Stalker, 1961). However, the complexity inherent in such structures can also create challenges. Employees who report to multiple managers or belong to several teams may face conflicting priorities, which can strain cohesion.

To mitigate these challenges, clear communication is essential. Employees need to understand how to navigate their roles within the matrix and prioritise their tasks effectively. Moreover, a strong organisational culture that emphasises shared goals can help maintain cohesion even in the face of structural complexity. This alignment ensures that, despite the inherent challenges, teams remain unified and focused on achieving common objectives.

Conclusion

Organisational structure is a powerful determinant of team cohesion, influencing not only formal interactions but also the deeper, less visible dynamics that shape how individuals relate to one another. However, even with the best intentions, internal biases and entrenched practices can sometimes obscure the most effective strategies for fostering cohesion. This is where independent third parties can provide invaluable support. By offering an objective perspective, consultants can identify structural and cultural barriers to cohesion that might otherwise go unnoticed. They can also assist in designing and implementing structures and practices that not only align with your strategic goals but also enhance the psychological well-being and unity of your teams. At FFC we specialise in providing these insights, helping you build a more cohesive, resilient organisation capable of thriving in today’s complex business environment.

References

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Publications.

De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behaviour: The interplay between procedural fairness, self, and cooperation. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 151-218). Academic Press.

Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.

Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking authority: Leading and following in the post-modern organization. MIT Press.

Mullins, L. J., & Christy, G. (2016). Management and organisational behaviour (11th ed.). Pearson Education.