




































 

 

 
10 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE IMPACT OF ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ON 
ORGANISATIONAL PERFORMANCE   

 

 

Sinqobile W. Nene1+ 

Alan S. Pillay2 

 

1,2MANCOSA Graduate School of Business, 16 Samora Machel St, Durban 
Central, Durban, 4001, South Africa.  

 
 

 
(+ Corresponding Author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 4 January 2019 
Revised: 15 February 2019 
Accepted: 18 March 2019 
Published: 22 April 2019 
 
 

Keywords 
Organisational structure 
Organisational culture 
Organisational performance 
Organisational structure 
Alignment. 
 

JEL Classification: 
L220. 

 
Organisational structure is one of the core aspects that contribute to organisational 
performance. It can thus be said that it is the single most critical part of ensuring that 
the organization achieves its organisational objectives. This study examined the impact 
of organisational structure on the organisational performance of the Property 
Administration Services Department (PAS) within an organisation located at the 
Rosherville Industrial Area in Johannesburg South, South Africa. The study intended 
to give a practical perspective on the impact of a complex organisational structure on 
elements of personnel job satisfaction and departmental performance. The research 
instrument was designed to establish the elements that influence the composition of the 
organisational structure. Data analysis was done through descriptive and inferential 
statistics. The conclusion showed the inference between these elements and the actual 
aim of this study. The study did not directly compare the analysis of performance and 
organisational structure influence on it but rather aimed at establishing the general 
consensus by the participants on the likelihood of them accepting suggestions and 
recommendations of the study. It was evident that the organisational structure is 
ineffective. The ineffectiveness of the structure was observed to have been a 
contributing factor to the low job satisfaction levels within the participants. The 
context of the study identified staff morale as the main contributor to poor 
performance. Therefore, it could be concluded that since the organisational structure 
negatively impacted staff morale, it also inadvertently negatively affected the 
performance of the department.  
 
 

Contribution/Originality: This study contributes to the existing literature in the field of organisational 

structure effectiveness. The study results are based on practically evaluated current existing organisational 

structure within the organisation used for this study. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

In any organization, one of the most valuable assets is considered to be the person within that organization. 

For the effectiveness and alignment of personnel with the organisation‟s vision, it is of utmost importance to have 

leadership and management systems and personnel that are effective and efficient in ensuring business alignment 

and thus business accountability and sustainability. The management systems in place shall be such that the 

organisational structure is effective for the business objectives of the organisation. This also applies to departmental 

objectives as single departmental outputs or performance directly influence or contribute to the overall 

organisation‟s performance. Most organisations do have some sort of an organisational structure. These structures 

Financial Risk and Management Reviews 
2019 Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 10-24 
ISSN(e): 2411-6408 
ISSN(p): 2412-3404 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.89.2019.51.10.24 
© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://www.doi.org/10.18488/journal.89.2019.51.10.24


Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
11 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

are developed and based on theory. It is presumed by Maquire (2003) that because theory claims that a particular 

organisational structure is effective in a particular type of an organisation, then it should work on most, if not all, 

similar organisations. The study conducted was aimed at highlighting the influence the organisational structure has 

on the organisation‟s performance. 

 

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 

A number of scholarly articles and text books were reviewed during the literature review. 

 

2.1. Organisational Structure 

According to Business Dictionary (2018) “an organisation is a social unit of people that is structured and 

managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals. McNamera (2018) further defines an organisation in its 

simplest form as “a person, a group or people intentionally organised to accomplish an overall, common goal or set 

of goals”. According to Robbins et al. (2014) “an organisational structure is defined as a system that determines how 

job tasks are formally divided, grouped and coordinated within an organisation”. In the context of this study, the 

definition of an organisation as given by McNamera (2018) in conjunction with the organisational structure 

definition as given by Robbins et al. (2014) provided the core definition of an organisational structure in terms of 

this study. This study thus defined the organisational structure as “a system that determines how tasks are formally 

structured and coordinated within a group that is intentionally organised to accomplish a common goal” (Robbins et 

al., 2014; McNamera, 2018). Each department or division within an organisation directly contributes to the overall 

organisational performance, thus the criticality of analysing each department‟s performance in order to determine 

what impact it has on the overall organisational performance. The business objective is to have an organisation in 

which all departments are in line with the organisation‟s main objectives. Shields (2016) identified two main 

organisational structures. These are a mechanistic structure and an organic structure. The mechanistic structure is 

said to be more formalized with high specialization and high administrative intensity while the organic structure is 

said to be less formalized. It is thus evident that all organisational structures may experience challenges based on 

the circumstances around the organisation at a given point in time. Since most organisational structures are fixed 

processes, the process to change them is very lengthy and this process cannot be adapted to all changes within the 

organisation, especially temporal or short-term changes. For an organisation to ensure that its organisational 

structure is always effective, it should ensure that the structure is flexible and/or adaptable to most anticipated 

circumstances.  

 

2.2. Organisational Culture 

In McLaughlin (2018) it can be established that every organisation has a culture of some sort. In the context of 

organisations, culture can simply be defined as a way of doing things within that organisation. According to 

McLaughlin (2018) organisational culture is defined as a “system of assumptions, values, and beliefs, which governs 

how people behave in organisations”. McLaughlin (2018) further states that these shared values have a strong 

influence on the people in the organisation and dictate how they dress, act, and perform their jobs. Every 

organisation develops and maintains its own unique culture which provides guidelines and boundaries for the 

behaviour of the members of that organisation (McLaughlin, 2018). According to Rafaeli and Worline (1999), “to 

understand the cultural system of an organisation is to understand the reactions, interpretations, and actions of 

organisational members, and how those actions, thoughts, and feelings are shaped by the collectivity”. Rafaeli and 

Worline (1999) introduced the case of organisational symbols in order to understand organisational culture. 

According to Rafaeli and Worline (1999) as cited in Rafaeli and Worline (1999) “symbols are integral to 

organisational life. They are not simply by-products of organisations but rather elements that structure members‟ 

active construction of sense, knowledge and behaviour”. A simple definition of organisational symbol from a 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
12 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

dictionary definition by Chevalier and Cheerbrant in 1994, as cited in Rafaeli and Worline (1999) is given as “a 

thing that stands for an idea”. However, Rafaeli and Worline (1999) also argued that this gives the impression that 

organisational symbols are randomly selected. They thus refer to organisational symbols as “visible, physical 

manifestations of organisations and indicators of organisational life”. Organisational culture in this context is 

considered as the way of doing things for the department. It is about how the department responds to situations. 

This is in relation to time, resources and personnel attitude. Robbins and Coulter (2005) as cited in Tsai (2011) also 

described organisational culture as “the shared values, beliefs, or perceptions held by employees within an 

organisation or organisational unit”. Tsai (2011) stated that “the pervasiveness of an organisational culture requires 

that management recognize its underpinning dimensions and its impact on employer-related variables such as job 

satisfaction, organisational commitment and performance”. Organisational culture is not only concerned with the 

cohesiveness of the organisational members, however, organisational culture can be said to have an influence on the 

job satisfaction as asserted by Tsai (2011).  

 

2.2.1. Challenges within an Organisational Structure 

Determining challenges within an organisational structure is critical for one to recommend an alternative for 

an already existing organisational structure. According to Khaleghi et al. (2013) “organisational structure plays an 

important role in the success of the organisation”. According to Robbins (1991) as cited in Ahmed (2012), an 

organisational structure must be clear to everyone so as to avoid confusion about the reporting protocol and the 

actual approach to the functioning of the organisation. Some of the challenges faced by organisational structures as 

indicated in an article by Root (2017) are “departmental loyalty, new management, confusion and company goals”. 

Organisational structures are set up to define the duties of each department and to determine each department‟s 

objectives and contribute to the overall organisation‟s performance and objectives. According to Root (2017) one of 

the dangers of creating departments is the appearance of different groups‟ mentality between the departments 

whereby each group sees themselves as independent of the other instead of working together for the better good of 

the organisation. Root (2017) also stresses that new management can also pose challenges to an organisational 

structure. Root (2017) further states that “if there have not been changes of management for many years, the 

organisation may start to settle into doing things following a particular approach”. However, changes in 

management can result in challenges on the organisational structure if the new management does not adopt the 

previous management‟s management style. Within the PAS department, management changes have been a norm in 

the last few years. This, therefore, results in the organisational structure having to be changed every time new 

management changes the focus of the department. Within an organisation, effective communication is identified by 

Root (2017) as one of the critical aspects of any business environment. Root (2017) stated that “without 

communication, new ideas and processes can get confused”. This can result in the misalignment of the 

organisation‟s objectives. Therefore, if departments are not communicating effectively, then confusion may affect 

the effectiveness of the organisational structure. Lastly, Root (2017) indicated that “an organisational structure is 

only as effective when the entire organisation utilizes it properly”.  

 

2.3. Organisational Performance 

In a study conducted by Balci et al. (2016) performance was described as “a total endeavour to attain a 

particular goal”. According to Torrington and Hall (1995), as cited by Balci et al. (2016) “performance with regard 

to function is associated with the terms, frequency, productivity and output and is viewed as a result of the 

interaction between individual talent and motivation”. Yanfei Xi and Fantiani (2011) as cited by Balci et al. (2016) 

stated that organisational performance which could be considered an indispensable part of the organisation and the 

main reason for organisational survival, is the total output of an employee as a result of certain processes, including 

job attitude and organisational behaviour”. According to Dusing (2017) organisational performance is a general 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
13 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

term referring to an assessment of the overall success or health of the organisation. Organisational performance can 

thus be defined as the measure of the outcome as compared to the target or inputs within an organisation for the 

organisation to reach its goals. Organisational performance is important to determine whether the organisation is 

reaching its goals or fulfilling its objectives. Goodman, Pennings and Associates (1917) as cited by Henri (2004) 

indicated that organisational performance or effectiveness mainly reflects a construct perspective in which the focus 

is on the definition of the concept in terms of assessment and conceptualization. In the context of this study, the 

criticality of organisational performance was at the heart of the overall objectives. 

 

2.3.1. Relationship between Organisational Structure and Performance 

The organisational structure is developed such that it would positively contribute to the organisation‟s overall 

performance. Robbins and Coulter (2001) as cited in Avdelidou-Fischer (2015) stressed the importance of 

measuring organisational performance and emphasized how vital an organisational structure is since it is “the 

vehicle through which managers can coordinate the activities of the various functions or divisions to exploit fully 

their expertise and capabilities”. Avdelidou-Fischer (2015) further indicated that an organisational structure is 

simply the process by which organisations formally divide, group, and coordinate job tasks. For any organisation to 

be effective and efficient, its organisational structure needs to be in line with the organisation‟s core objectives. A 

study conducted by Khaleghi et al. (2013) indicated that “an organisational structure plays a crucial role in the 

success of an organisation”. Khaleghi et al. (2013) further stated that a “successful organisation normally uses a 

horizontal and less complicated structure”. The study intended to identify the relationship between the 

organisation‟s formality, complexity and concentration to its performance. The results of that study by Khaleghi et 

al. (2013) indicated that “Although there were some positive impacts from the formality and concentration on the 

organisational performance, there was no indication of any possible effect from the complexity of the structure on 

the organisational performance”. In this research study, the departmental performance relied fairly on the 

organisational structure. A horizontal structure is more effective when it comes to performance measurement as 

opposed to a vertical or hierarchical organisational structure. This statement was supported by Ostroff (1999) when 

he stated that, “the horizontal organisation promotes the understanding of the overall benefits of their work within 

the organisation”. In essence, many organisations continuously review their organisational structures in order to 

ensure that the organisational structure used is the most effective and efficient at any point in time as claimed by 

Aquinas (2008).  

 

2.3.2. The Impact of Organisational Culture within an Organization 

A study by Joharis (2016) on “the impact of organisational culture, organisational structure and job satisfaction 

on teacher organisational commitment at senior high schools in Medan, Indonesia”, found that one of the 

conclusions was that, organisational culture, organisational structure and job satisfaction at the same time 

contributed to job performance. This clearly shows that in essence, one cannot separate performance from the 

organisational structure and culture. According to Tsui et al. (2006) “The organisational culture is a consequence of 

the visionary and charismatic leadership of the CEO”. This means that there is a strong relationship between 

leadership and the organisational culture. It can thus be said that organisational culture has a direct impact on the 

organisation as a whole. Tsui et al. (2006) argued that in many circumstances, leader‟s actions have little effect on 

the organisational performance. They further argued that factors such as “characteristics of individuals, jobs or 

organisations can act as substitutes for leadership and negate leader‟s influence on the organisation”. Differently 

stated, it can be said that the organisational culture has more impact on the organisational performance than the 

leader‟s influence. The leadership shall thus be in line with the organisational culture. The intent of this study, 

however, only concentrated on the organisational structure impact on the department‟s performance. However, 

organisational culture was also discussed for the purpose of understanding the context of this research study. 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
14 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Organisational culture in this context was considered as the way of doing things in the department. It was about 

how the department responds to situations. This was in relation to time, resources and personnel attitude. 

 

2.3.3. Organisational Structure and Culture Alignment Impact on Performance 

An organisational structure influences the culture of the organisation. Organisational culture is one of the core 

drivers of performance. Every organisational structure and culture must be aligned to the overall organisation‟s 

vision and mission. In a study by Glavas and Godwin (2013) it can be said that in the event of misalignment, the 

performance of that organisation may be negatively affected. There are a number of reasons for organisational 

alignment. According to Schweitzer and Iyengar (2013) some of the reasons for alignment within an organisation 

are to help an organisation work cohesively, in coordinating everyone‟s activities so the organisation as a whole can 

work towards the same goals and give employees direction and vision of what matters most in the organisation. An 

organisation‟s performance is the key to its success. If the performance of an organisation is directly influenced by 

the organisational culture, it is therefore critical to understand the organisational culture of an organisation before 

recommending changes to its organisational structure as per the assertion by Schweitzer and Iyengar (2013). 

 

2.3.4. Streamlining Organisational Performance through Departments 

One of the ways of streamlining organisational performance is through its departments. Each department 

focuses on its own objectives and performance which contributes to the overall organisation‟s performance. 

Sometimes there can be departments within the larger department which are sub-departments of the larger 

department. A study by Ahmed (2017) on, “The Importance of The Organisational Structuring and 

Departmentalization in the Workplace” defined departmentalization of an enterprise as a process whereby a number 

of departments are created based on the nature of their functions. According to Ahmed (2017) “departmentalization 

helps to develop new managers by providing them with the opportunity to take independent decisions and 

initiatives and this consequently creates an environment whereby highly skilled subordinates can get an 

opportunity of being promoted to higher levels of management”. In the same study, Ahmed (2017) stated that if the 

departmental functions expand, the organisation can further sub-divide that department so as to share the workload 

more efficiently. The advantages of departmentalization by function given by Ahmed (2017) is that, “it is the most 

logical and natural form of departmentalization, it brings about specialization which makes optimum utilization of 

human resources and it also lays emphasis on each and every activity. The departmentalization by function could 

also enable top management to exercise control over a number of functions and facilitates delegation of authority 

and therefore, reduces the work burden of a top manager and it eliminates the duplication of effort that brings 

efficiency”. The attestation by Ahmed (2017) in the study conducted shows that departmentalization results in a 

single point of authority within a department. In this case, accountability can be appropriately directed to an 

individual. When performance as one of the key performance indicators is evaluated, the single source of 

accountability is responsible for ensuring that the department‟s performance is up to the acceptable standard. It has 

also shown that departmentalization can be used to streamline organisational performance. According to Ahmed 

(2017) departmentalization leads to the benefit of applying the gained knowledge in order to achieve the required 

goals. This then improves the efficiency of the organisation. In this study by Ahmed (2017) it is however stated that 

there are also disadvantages of departmentalization such as the negative impact on the personnel‟s attitude towards 

their work. Ahmed (2017) further stated that “in departmentalization, the standard of performance of each 

department and objective to be achieved is planned and when actual performance deviates from the planned 

performance, these can be addressed accordingly”. 

 

 

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
15 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2.4. Accountability 

According to Business Dictionary (2018) accountability is “the obligation of an individual or organisation to 

account for its activities, accept responsibility for them, and to disclose the results in a transparent manner”. 

Wigmore (2014) defines accountability as an assurance that an individual or an organisation will be evaluated on 

their performance related to something for which they are responsible. Wigmore (2014) argues that the term 

“accountability” is related to responsibility but seen more from the perspective of oversight. Accountability can be 

both personal and organisational. Wigmore (2014) states that “organisational or corporate accountability involves 

being answerable to all of an organisation‟s stakeholders for all actions and results”. This corporate accountability 

implies that an organisation must be answerable for any deviations from its policies, mission statements and/or 

vision statements. It is also argued by Wigmore (2014) that in its simplicity, corporate or organisational 

accountability is often broadened to imply a requirement for organisations to function in a more responsible, ethical 

and sustainable manner. This is generally considered as one of the two main principles in corporate governance, 

viz., accountability and transparency as asserted by Wigmore (2014). In an article about avoidance of personal 

accountability, Gibson (2008) as cited in Laskowski (2013) relates the leader‟s approach to accountability by stating 

that “as a leader, one is the ultimate arbiter of accountability, but one should never be the primary arbiter of 

accountability”. According to Laskowski (2013) “without commitment and clarity, it is impossible for team members 

to hold each other personally accountable for their behaviour”. This means that the organisation should ensure that 

each personnel as an individual should have clear responsibilities for them to be held accountable. The organisation 

as a whole should be positioned such that it can be held accountable to its functioning. This may include amongst 

others, performance, financial, social responsibility, etc. As attested by Laskowski (2013) there must first be clearly 

defined responsibilities for the organisation for it to be held accountable. In the context of this study, the 

organisational responsibilities need to be clarified before the department can be held accountable for any of their 

actions as it is unfair to hold an individual or an organisation accountable for things that are not clearly defined as 

their responsibilities. In a study about organisational responses to accountability requirements, Gray et al. (2017) 

found that organisations engage in active, as well as passive, forms of compliance. The study indicated that internal 

policies, practices and/or procedures are changed to meet accountability requirements. 

 

2.5. Management Theory of Argyris 

According to Dininni (2017) Chris Argyris explored the concept of organisational learning and its impact on a 

company‟s growth, effectiveness and adaptability. Dininni (2017) further stated that Argyris‟ theories focused on 

single-loop learning and double-loop learning, the immaturity or maturity continuum, organisational 

communication and the effects of each of these on employee motivation, accountability and empowerment. This 

suggests that Chris Argyris‟ theories not only focused on the organisational behaviour but also on the individuals 

within the organisation as they touch on the employee motivation, accountability and empowerment. In an 

interview by Christensen (2008) Chris Argyris stated that the key to changing behaviour is not simply changing 

behaviour, because it is possible to keep the same theory in your head and change your behaviour. The key is to 

change the way people reason about their behaviour, based on the theories in their heads. The challenge is to help 

individuals transform their espoused theories into theories-in-use by learning a new set of skills and a new set of 

governing values. Chris Argyris also argued that although people reason and take actions, they can be taught how 

to identify their reasoning when they take any action. In essence, this means that a key to changing behaviour is not 

mainly about the change in behaviour itself but the understanding of the principle or reasoning behind one‟s action. 

Chris Argyris as cited in Vliet (2010) stated that most people define learning too narrowly as mere „problem-

solving‟, so they focus on identifying and correcting errors in the external environment. He stated that solving 

problems is important, but if learning is to persist, managers and employees must also look inwards. There is a need 

to reflect critically on their own behaviour, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
16 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

organisation‟s problems and then change how they act. According to Dininni (2017) Chris Argyris stated that in 

contrast to double-loop learning, which questions underlying assumptions, single-loop learning, which solves 

problems superficially and symptomatically, fails to address the real issues that make companies ineffective. Dininni 

(2017) further stated that Argyris‟ theory also asserted that open communication within an organisation, normally 

considered a good thing, can block learning and hinder progress if it is based on defensiveness, denial of real 

problems, inability to face tough issues and refusal to examine one‟s own attitudes and contributions to the problem. 

Chris Argyris‟ theory, according to Dininni (2017) also stated that “successful employee empowerment requires 

management to provide opportunities for personal growth in the same seven areas in which children must mature 

as they approach adulthood”. These are activity, independence, behaviours, interests, perspectives, equality or 

superiority and self-awareness or self-control. Chris Argyris management theory states that employees must move 

from passivity to activity, dependence to independence, few behaviours to many behaviours, shallow interests to 

deep interests, short-term perspectives to long-term perspectives, subordination to equality or superiority and non-

self-awareness to self-awareness or self-control (Dininni, 2017). These assertions suggest that organisational 

learning is part of the principles that can be used for improved performance of an organisation.  

 

 
Figure-1. Organisational Learning. 

Source: Rasulov (2017). 

 

In Figure 1 above, Rasulov (2017) highlights the sequence Chris Argyris followed in his study on 

organisational learning. This involved starting with the assumptions that the organisation knows why it does what 

it does. This is followed by the strategies and techniques which determine what the organisation is actually doing. 

Thereafter, the results are what is achieved from the strategies and techniques. Figure 1 shows how single-loop 

learning and double-loop learning relates to organisational learning. Single-loop learning is focused on solving the 

problems that arise or correcting the errors identified from the undesired results of the strategies implemented. On 

the other hand, double-loop learning is concerned with reviewing the entire chain of thought, from the assumptions, 

values or beliefs of the organisation to the strategies implemented in order to ensure the desired results. According 

to Zaleznik (1992) the efficient manager adopts impersonal attitudes towards goals, which themselves are deeply 

embedded in the organisation‟s history and culture while leaders on the other hand are active instead of reactive, 

shaping ideas and adopting a personal attitude toward goals. Zaleznik (1992)  further states that managers view 

work as an enabling process involving a combination of people and ideas interacting to establish strategies and 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
17 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

make decisions, while leaders work from high-risk positions and are disposed to seek out risk when opportunity 

arises. Therefore, it can be said that within an organisation, managers may be inclined to using the single-loop 

learning approach as opposed to leaders who may be inclined to adopting the double-loop learning approach. 

According to Argyris (1973)  organisations come into being when goals to be achieved are too complex for any one 

individual. Chris Argyris also mentions the drive behind why employees do what they do. He indicates that, 

“employees produce the energy for the organisation and they do that to seek individual gain”. This gain is linked to 

their needs (Argyris, 1973). From the Argyris theory, it can be said that an organisation can be improved through 

Single and Double Loop Learning.  

 

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

This research study was contextual in nature. It took place in the confines of the environment of the population 

where the study was taking place. According to Lappe (2000) the aim of correlational research is to describe the 

relationship among variables rather than to infer cause and effect relationships. Lappe (2000) further stated that 

descriptive correlational studies are useful for describing how one phenomenon is related to another in situations 

where the researcher has no control over the independent or outcome variable. The statement by Lappe (2000) gave 

rise to the decision to select the correlation research design as the most appropriate research design structure that 

was used, as the outcome of the research was meant to identify the relationship between the variables. In the 

context of this study, the variables that were considered are the departmental organisational structure as the 

independent variable and departmental performance as the dependent variable. This means that the research had to 

conclude on the impact the organisational structure has on the organisational performance which may or may not 

be directly influenced by the organisational structure. The comparison was based on the current organisational 

structure and performance as compared to a possibly more effective organisational structure that would positively 

contribute to improved performance.  

A quantitative research method was used in which the questionnaire results were used for analysis as the 

questions used in the survey questionnaire were aimed at identifying particular trends or feelings of the respondents 

in relation to each question or statement posed. A positivist research strategy was thus the appropriate research 

strategy to use as Cohen and Crabtree (2006) had suggested that the positivist paradigm is grounded in the 

theoretical belief that there is an objective reality that can be known to the researcher if the researcher uses the 

correct methods and applies those methods in a correct manner. The researcher‟s approach was objective as the 

intent was not to purposely sway the result in one direction or the other but rather focus on the results of the data 

collected. The target population was the entire PAS personnel. A census approach was used to maximise the 

response rate. There were a total of 250 personnel within the PAS Department who were approached to take part 

on the study. This included personnel at different levels and with different experiences within the department. A 

probability sampling strategy was used with a simple random sampling technique. The total number of the target 

population was taken as n = 250 and the sampled participants was taken as N = 250. A total number of 25 

participants formed part of the pilot study. 

According to Opoku et al. (2016) the choice of suitable data collection and analysis methods for any research 

study is determined by the paradigm of the research and the nature of the research question(s). 

A survey questionnaire was used as a data collection tool for this study. The responses were grouped together 

according to the statements and an analysis of the grouped responses was conducted. Each statement represented 

part of the objectives. The outcome of the analysis of the responses was then aligned to the variables of which the 

study intended to correlate. Thereafter, a correlation between the two variables, the organisational structure and 

the organisational performance, was done. Likert-scale type statements were used during data collection. According 

to Boone and Boone (2012) a Likert-scale “is composed of a series of four or more Likert-type items that are 

combined into a single composite score or variable during the data analysis process”. Data was collected and 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
18 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

analysed from a positivist paradigm. An enumerative or descriptive statistical analysis was used during the data 

analysis process (Jarausch and Hardy, 1991). The collected data was represented both in tables of which the tables 

were used as the data source for graphical or figure representation of the results. For each section of the 

questionnaire, a table and a graphical presentation was developed. These contributed to the overall representation 

of the results for conclusion purposes. Inferential statistical analysis was also used to infer the findings to the 

general public within the same context of the study. A basic inferential statistics in the form of correlation was used. 

A correlation coefficient as explained by Byme (2007) “measures the strength of association between two variables, 

and reveals whether the correlation is negative or positive”. 

 

4. DATA ANALYSIS 

The data collection instrument was composed of four sections. Section A entailed the demographic information, 

Section B, the job satisfaction, Section C, the impact of the organisational structure on the departmental 

performance and Section D the processes for the organisation to streamline the department‟s performance. The 

participants were identifiable as shown in Table 1: 

 
Table-1. Participant Identification. 

Participant Identification 

Position Level Participants’ Codes 

Manager Management PMP 1 
Administration HOD's Management AMP 1 to 4 
Engineering/Maintenance HOD's Management EMP 1 to 5 
General Work HODs Management GMP 1 to 3 
Technical/Skilled Supervision TSP 1 to 21 
Non-Technical/Semi-skilled Employees NEP 1 to 216 

              

The collected data was presented as per the pie charts in Figure 2 below. These were related to the 

participants‟ service with the organisation, participants‟ service with the department, years in current positions, 

qualifications of participants, gender composition, participants‟ age and race composition. 

 

 
Figure-2. Data representation as pie charts.                                 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
19 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

The data showed in summary that 64% of the participants had been with the organisation for between 1 and 5 

years, 62% had been in the department under study for between 1 to 5 years, 62% had been in their current position 

for between 1 to 5 years, 84% only have up to matric as their highest qualification, 57% were female while 43% were 

male, 55% were between the age of 30 to 39 years and 91% of them were of black African ethnicity 

 

4.1. Specific Analysis 

From the core data collected, specific analysis was conducted for the purpose of inference as the core data did 

not directly correlate the variables identified for the study. 

 

4.1.1. Job Satisfaction 

The main objective of the job satisfaction section was to measure the level of job satisfaction in order to identify 

the general feeling amongst the participants. Statements were given to the participants. The participants had to 

respond to each statement by stating whether they strongly agree, agree, do not know, disagree and strongly 

disagree. The participants‟ responses are presented in Figure 3.  

 

 
Figure-3. Job satisfaction survey. 

          

Based on the statements presented to the participants and their responses, it was evident that the majority of 

the participants (88.14%) indicated that they were not satisfied with their current conditions or jobs. The 

correlation inherent to job satisfaction for each statement was based on the responses for each statement whereby 

some responses presented a positive scenario and others a negative scenario which would indicate an agreement or 

disagreement of the respondents towards the statements given. It was noted that majority of the respondents 

disagreed with the majority of the statements given which meant that the level of their job satisfaction was low. 

Job satisfaction and performance are related. According to a study by Bakotic (2016) there was evidence of the 

existence of a clear link between employee‟s job satisfaction and organisational performance. Bakotic (2016) 

concluded that it could be stated that job satisfaction strongly determines organisational performance as opposed to 

organisational performance determining job satisfaction. In the context of this research, it can be said that since 

only 11.86% of the participants responded positively to job satisfaction in indicating that they are satisfied with 

their job, then performance is likely to be positively influenced by 11.86% of the participants while 88.14% 

negatively was affecting it. According to a case study by Awan and Asghar (2014) it was concluded that in general, 

there is a relationship between job satisfaction and performance. Although this study did not directly correlate job 

satisfaction with the participants‟ performance, it can be inferred that the high percentage of participants, at 88.14%, 

who indicated that they were not satisfied with their jobs was one of the negative contributors to departmental 

performance.  

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
20 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.1.2. Organisational Structure Impact on Performance 

Organisational structure impact on performance is presented by Figure 4: 

 

 
Figure-4. Organisational structure impact on the departmental performance. 

                      

The figure above shows that a high number of participants, at 85%, indicated a level of disagreement or 

strongly disagreement towards statements that were intended to determine their opinion on the impact of the 

organisational structure on the departmental performance. Maduenyi et al. (2015) stated that organisational 

structure has an impact on organisational performance. The paper further concluded that performance of an 

organization largely depends on the structure of the organization. This means that if an organization has an 

adequately developed organisational structure, it would be easy to identify any shortfalls that may affect 

performance. An adequately developed organisational structure in this context is one whereby all personnel within 

the structure understand their roles, the roles of others and the influence of their performance on the overall 

organization.  

 

4.1.3. PAS Organisational Structure Impact on Performance 

Organisational structure and performance are two variables that were considered by this research study. Their 

relationship formed part of the analysis of this research study so as to understand the impact of the current 

organisational structure on the performance of the department. According to Nahm et al. (2003) for an organisation 

to reduce its response time, its organisational structure must be developed such that it is effective. In this 

organisational structure according to Nahm et al. (2003) workers manage their work independently. Response time 

is one of the influencers of performance, thus the attestation by Nahm et al. (2003) which indicated that 

organisational structures with fewer layers in the hierarchy have reduced response time which would positively 

contribute towards performance. A study conducted by Bai et al. (2017) showed that “cross-functional integration 

improves performance of the team”.  According to Richard et al. (2009) as cited in Hao et al. (2012) “organisational 

performance is anchored around a multi-dimensional conceptualization related predominantly to stakeholders, 

heterogeneous market circumstances, and time”. Hao et al. (2012) introduced the concept of organisational learning. 

Organisational learning, according to Morales et al. (2007) as cited in Hao et al. (2012) is the firm‟s capability to 

improve performance based on experience. Hao et al. (2012) further cited  Sakalas and Venskus (2007) stating that 

organisational structure is an important factor in knowledge management, and learning organisation is impossible 

to realize without respective organisation management structures. Wong and Cheung (2008) as cited in Hao et al. 

(2012) asserted that there is a relationship between organisational learning and performance. They further stated 

that different kinds of organisational learning relate to performance.  In this study, the organisational structure 

being studied showed a negative contribution towards performance. 

 

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
21 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4.1.4. Statistical Analysis 

The standard deviation, effect sizes and confidence intervals were calculated. During the calculations, the data 

results were further grouped into two groups. The two groups were the group that supported the recommendations 

(group 1) and the group that had low job satisfaction levels (group 2). Mean values were calculated from the two 

groups and for group 1 it was found to be 203.4285714 with a median of 225 and a mode of 225 and for group 2 , 

the mean value was found to be 29.6875 with a median of 3.5 and a mode of 0. Although the standard deviation had 

minimal impact on this study, it was however calculated in order to indicate that the respondents did not all fall into 

the same category on the Likert-scale responses. The standard deviation for group 1 was found to be 59.2007 while 

for group 2 it was 66.756. The standard deviation formula used considered only the sample data used. Figure 5 

below presents the data that was extrapolated from the mean value and standard deviation calculation to determine 

the effect sizes. 

 

 
Figure-5. Values used for the effect size calculations. 

                 . 

 

Cohen‟s d, Glass‟ delta and Hedges‟ g were calculated and found to be as presented in Table 2: 

 
Table-2. Effect size determinants. 

Effect Size Determinants Value 

Cohen's d  2.753792 
Glass's delta  2.934779 
Hedges' g  2.753792 

 

 

In this context, since the two groups have different standard deviations and the difference in the sample size is 

negligible, Cohen‟s d and Hedges‟ g was disregarded. Instead, Glass‟s delta was considered. This means that the 

two groups differ by 2.75379 standard deviations. However, this was not considered as an issue as it only indicated 

how much the two groups differ in terms of standard deviation. The two groups were not the direct variables used 

in this research, rather they were used as secondary data for the final analysis as they provided the research with 

information that was used for the descriptive analysis. The calculated Glass‟s delta indicated that there was a 

relationship between group 1 and group 2, however their means were different. Although the confidence interval 

between the two groups was found to be between 162.05091 and 185.43109, this means that one can be 95% 

confident that the difference between the two populations means lie between 162.05091 and 185.43109 only if the 

same process of sampling method is used. For inferential statistics analysis, a standard Confidence Interval using 

the t-distribution was used. Using the mathportal computation method, the mean values were verified while the t-

values calculated. The t-value that indicates the difference between the sample data and the null hypothesis was 

found to be 7.4929, the degrees of freedom to be 28 and the critical value to be 2.048. The two groups of values used 

were only for inference purposes to the main aim of this study.  

 

 

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
22 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Although no reference to the actual measurements of performance within the department was made, it was 

evident that the department‟s organisational structure is ineffective. The ineffectiveness of the organisational 

structure was observed to have been contributing to the low levels of job satisfaction within the participants in the 

study. Thus it can be concluded that there is general low staff morale within the department. Therefore, it could be 

concluded that since the organisational structure negatively impacted the staff morale, it also inadvertently 

negatively affected the performance of the department. This then implied that the current organisational structure 

does have a negative impact on the overall performance of the department. As indicated within the literature review, 

the departmental performance also influences the overall organisational performance, therefore it can be further 

concluded that the current departmental organisational structure is negatively affecting the organisational 

performance. Since it is difficult to measure the influence of each demographic profile element such as age, race, 

gender, level of education, period in the current position and period in the organization, on performance, it can only 

be relied on inference regarding what impact these have on organisational performance. Also, the research 

instrument was designed to establish a number of other elements such as job satisfaction, willingness to engage and 

support new proposals that influence the organisational structure composition; the conclusion showed the inference 

between these elements and the actual aim of this study. The study did not directly compare the analysis of 

performance and organisational structure influence on it but rather aimed at establishing the general consensus by 

the participants on the likelihood of them accepting suggestions and recommendations of the study. This then was 

used to conclude that it is clear that the current organisational structure has a negative impact on the participants, 

thus negatively affecting their general performance. Personnel performance could then be directly linked to 

departmental performance. Thus the assertion by the researcher in this study stated that the current organisational 

structure negatively affects/impacts organisational performance. The literature showed that according to Robbins 

(1991) as cited in Ahmed (2012), an organisational structure must be clear to everyone so as to avoid confusion 

about the reporting protocol and the actual approach to the functioning of the organization. The acceptance or 

agreement by the participants in relation to the recommendations brought forward implies that they are not 

satisfied with the current environment. The recommendations brought forward were related to the organisational 

structure review, skills improvement requirements, delegation of authority review and team building.  

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Contributors/Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the 
study. 

 

REFERENCES  

Ahmed, M.A., 2017. The importance of the organizational structuring and departmentalization in workplace. The Journal of 

Middle East and North Africa Sciences, 3(3): 30-38.Available at: https://doi.org/10.12816/0034796. 

Aquinas, P.G., 2008. In: Organization structure and design. New Delhi: Excel Books. pp: 7. 

Argyris, C., 1973. Personality and organizational theory revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(2): 141-167. 

Avdelidou-Fischer, N., 2015. The relationship between organizational structure and performance: The case of the fortune 500. 

Value Creation in Multinational Enterprise: 169-206. 

Awan, P.D.A.G. and I. Asghar, 2014. Impact of employee job satisfaction on their performance - a case study of banking secto in 

Muzaffargarh District, Pakistan. Global Journal of Human Resources Managemen, 2(4): 71-94. 

Bai, W., Y. Feng, Y. Yue and L. Feng, 2017. Organizational structure, cross-functional integration and performance of new 

product development team. Procedia Engineering, 174(1): 621-629.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.198. 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
23 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Bakotic, D., 2016. Relationship between job satisfaction and organizational performance. Economic Research-Ekonomska 

Instrazivanja, 29(1): 118-130. 

Balci, A., O. Inci, P. Mahmut, S. Ahmet and B. Erkut, 2016. Organizational socilalization and its relation with orgnaizational 

performance in high schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(9): 71-81.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i9.1685. 

Boone, H.N. and D.A. Boone, 2012. Analyzing likert data. Journal of Extension, 50(2): 1-5. 

Business Dictionary, 2018. Bd dictionary: Definition-organization. Available from 

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization.html [Accessed 25 February 2018]. 

Christensen, K., 2008. Thought leader interview with Chris Arbyris. The Magazine of the Rotman School of Management, 

January. pp: 10-13. 

Cohen, D. and B. Crabtree, 2006. Qualitative research guidelines project. New Jersey: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 

Dininni, J., 2017. Management theory of Chris Argyris. Available from https://www.business.com/ [Accessed 27 February 

2018]. 

Dusing, R.P., 2017. Examining the relationship between employee satisfaction and organizational performance in higher 

education. Parkway: PoQuest. 

Glavas, A. and L.N. Godwin, 2013. Is the perception of „goodness‟ good enough? Exploring the relationship between perceived 

corporate social responsibility and employee organizational identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1): 15-

27.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1323-5. 

Gray, C.S., W. Berta, R. Deber and J. Lum, 2017. Organizational responses to accountability requirements: Do we get what we 

expect? Health Care Management Review, 42(1): 65-75.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000089. 

Hao, Q., H. Kasper and J. Muehlbacher, 2012. How does organizational structure influence performance through learning and 

innovation in Australia and China. Chinese Management Studies, 6(1): 36-52.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1108/17506141211213717. 

Henri, J.F., 2004. Performance measurement and organizational effectiveness: Brigding the gap. Quebec City: University of 

Laval. 

Jarausch, K.H. and K.A. Hardy, 1991. In: Quantitative methods for historians: A guide to research, data, and statistics. North 

Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. pp: 1-22. 

Joharis, M., 2016. The effect of leadership, organizational culture, work motivation and job satisfaction on teacher organizational 

commitment at senior high school in Medan. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 5(10): 1-8. 

Khaleghi, D., H. Alavi and M. Alimiri, 2013. A study on the effects of organizational structure on success of performance 

measurement. Management Science Letters, 3(6): 1611-1614.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2013.05.028. 

Lappe, J.M., 2000. Taking the mystery out of research: Descriptive correlational design. Orthopaedic Nursing, 19(2): 81. 

Laskowski, N., 2013. Five team dysfunctions that could spell disaster for any IT department. Available from 

http://searchcio.techtarget.com/0 [Accessed 4 March 2018]. 

Maduenyi, S., A.O. Oke, O. Fadeyi and M.A. Ajagbe, 2015. Impact of organizational structure in organizational performance. s.l. 

International Conference on African Development Issues. 

Maquire, E.E., 2003. In: Organizational structure in American police agencies. Newy York: State University of New York Press. 

pp: 218-220. 

McLaughlin, J., 2018. What is organizational culture. Available from https://study.com/academy/[Accessed [Accessed 4 03 

2018]. 

McNamera, C., 2018. Definition of organization. Available from https://managementhelp.org/organizations/definition.htm 

[Accessed 25 February 2018]. 

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/organization.html
http://www.business.com/
http://searchcio.techtarget.com/0


Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2019, 5(1): 10-24 

 

 
24 

© 2019 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Nahm, A.Y., M.A. Vonderembse and X.A. Koufteros, 2003. The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing 

and plant performance. Journal of Operations Management, 23(1): 281-306.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(02)00107-9. 

Opoku, A., V. Ahmed and J. Akotia, 2016. Choosing an appropriate research methodology and method. In: Research 

Methodology in the Built Environment. New York: Routledge. pp: 33-49. 

Ostroff, F., 1999. What the horizontal orginization is?. In: The horizontal organization. New York: Oxford University Press. pp: 

14. 

Rafaeli, A. and M. Worline, 1999. Symbols in orginizational culture. In: Handbook of organizational culture and climate. 

Michigan: University of Michigan. pp: 1-36. 

Rasulov, E., 2017. Management theory. Available from https://prezi.com/wmuxfltz0kvz/management-theory-by-elyor-

rasulov/ [Accessed 4 March 2018]. 

Robbins, P., 1991. Organizational behaviour: Concepts, controversies and applications. 5th Edn., New Jersey: Prentice Hall 

International Inc. 

Robbins, S.P., D.A.D. Cenzo and M. Coulter, 2014. Defining organizational structure. In: Fundamentals of management: 

Management Myths Debunked. London: Pearsons Higher Ed. pp: 106. 

Root, G.N., 2017. Problems within an organizational structure. Available from smallbusiness.chron.com [Accessed 14 September 

2017]. 

Sakalas, A. and R. Venskus, 2007. Interaction of learning organization and organizational structure. Engineering Economics, 

53(3): 65-70. 

Schweitzer, L. and R. Iyengar, 2013. Orginizational alignement. Washington DC: Associated American Medical Colleges. 

Shields, J., 2016. Organizational structure. In: Managing employee performance and rewards: Concepts, practices, strategies. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp: 67. 

Tsai, Y., 2011. Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. BMC Health Services 

Research, 11(1): 98.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-98. 

Tsui, A.S., Z.-X. Zhang, H. Wang, K.R. Xin and J.B. Wu, 2006. Unpacking the relationship between CEO leadership behavior 

and organizational culture. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2): 113-137.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.001. 

Vliet, V.V., 2010. Chris Argyris. Available from https://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/chris-argyris/ [Accessed 04 March 

2018]. 

Wigmore, I., 2014. Tech target. Available from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/accountability [Accessed 4 March 

2018]. 

Zaleznik, A., 1992. Managers and leaders: Are they different? Houston Police Department Leadership Journal, 1(1): 47-63. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Financial Risk and Management Reviews shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

http://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/chris-argyris/
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/accountability

