worksection
Blog
10 Types of Organizational Structures for Companies
  •     •   11 min read
PM PM secrets Project Management

10 Types of Organizational Structures for Companies

Orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture of a com­pa­ny helps to see the ​“inside” of the busi­ness: how roles and respon­si­bil­i­ties are dis­trib­uted with­in it, and even how the main busi­ness process­es pro­ceed. The busi­ness orga­ni­za­tion­al chart helps to iden­ti­fy the ​“weak points” of the busi­ness, effec­tive­ly plan and reduce costs, and devel­op a pro­duc­tive man­age­ment strategy.

In this arti­cle, we will talk about the most pop­u­lar types of orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture of an enter­prise and fig­ure out how to build an opti­mal cor­po­rate struc­ture chart with org chart examples.

What Is an Orga­ni­za­tion­al Structure?

The orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture of an enter­prise is a mod­el that explains the rela­tion­ships between employ­ees or entire departments.

It builds a hier­ar­chy with­in the com­pa­ny and deter­mines the prin­ci­ple of action when mak­ing and exe­cut­ing decisions.

The rights and respon­si­bil­i­ties of man­agers and employ­ees are estab­lished based on the orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture. In addi­tion, the types of orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture influ­ence the key roles to achieve over­all busi­ness goals.

We will dis­cuss the 10 main orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture types com­mon in busi­ness man­age­ment. And let us imme­di­ate­ly note: this is not a dog­ma. There are no restric­tions in the selec­tion and appli­ca­tion of spe­cif­ic orga­ni­za­tion­al charts. You can adapt the orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture for your­self, change or com­bine dif­fer­ent types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems for dif­fer­ent areas of activ­i­ty. But you need to under­stand the fea­tures of each of the types of orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­tures to do this.

1️⃣Hier­ar­chi­cal Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

The Hier­ar­chi­cal Orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture of a com­pa­ny refers to clas­sic types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems. It estab­lish­es clear­ly defined func­tions, rights and respon­si­bil­i­ties of employ­ees. The cen­tral node is respon­si­ble for control.


At its core, a hier­ar­chi­cal struc­ture refers to a pyra­mid: the high­est lev­el of pow­er sits at the top, and the lev­els of pow­er decrease from top to down.

In this method of orga­ni­za­tion, deci­sion-mak­ing is also top-down. Exec­u­tives or upper man­age­ment make cru­cial deci­sions and then pass them down to mid­dle man­agers, and fur­ther down to low­er-lev­el employ­ees for implementation.

There are hier­ar­chi­cal orga­ni­za­tions with dif­fer­ent lev­els of man­age­ment, pow­er or author­i­ty. This is the dom­i­nant mode for large tra­di­tion­al orga­ni­za­tions like Gov­ern­ments and orga­nized religions.

Pros

  • Sim­ple and clear orga­ni­za­tion­al structure;
  • Has a clear hier­ar­chy and report­ing lines;
  • Easy to manage;
  • Effec­tive for small companies.​​​​​​​​​

Cons

  • Inflex­i­ble and slow to make decisions;
  • Lim­it­ed com­mu­ni­ca­tion between departments;
  • Not suit­able for fast-grow­ing companies.​​​​​​​

2️⃣Func­tion­al Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

This type of orga­ni­za­tion­al frame­work involves the divi­sion of respon­si­bil­i­ties accord­ing to pro­fes­sion­al skills. Employ­ees are grouped accord­ing to the func­tion they pro­vide. Besides the gen­er­al direc­tor, there are direc­tors respon­si­ble for their areas: sales, pro­duc­tion, mar­ket­ing direc­tor, etc.


A Func­tion­al struc­ture is one of the most com­mon among oth­er types of orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­tures. This struc­ture estab­lish­es clear expec­ta­tions and has a well-defined chain of com­mand. How­ev­er, this struc­ture runs the risk of being too con­fin­ing, it can impede employ­ee growth and cross-depart­ment com­mu­ni­ca­tion and collaboration.

At the same time, func­tion­al struc­ture facil­i­tates spe­cial­iza­tion, scal­a­bil­i­ty and account­abil­i­ty. This mod­el is tra­di­tion­al­ly used by hold­ings — enter­pris­es with many areas of activ­i­ty and a wide range of products.

Pros

  • High spe­cial­iza­tion of employees;
  • Effi­cient use of resources;
  • Easy to coor­di­nate the work of specialists.​​​

Cons

  • Bureau­crat­ic and slow;
  • Lim­it­ed cross-func­tion­al communication;
  • Not suit­able for fast chang­ing markets.

3️⃣Hor­i­zon­tal or flat Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

Man­age­ment sys­tem with a min­i­mum num­ber of mid­dle man­agers. Deci­sions in such types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems are main­ly made by line employ­ees with rel­e­vant expe­ri­ence and competencies.


Under a Hor­i­zon­tal struc­ture, the com­pa­ny has a short chain of com­mand. It allows employ­ees to focus and invest time in big goals because they have more auton­o­my, free­dom and inde­pen­dence to car­ry out their roles and responsibilities.

This cor­po­rate struc­ture type is most­ly adopt­ed by small com­pa­nies and start-ups in their ear­ly stage because their work and effort in a small com­pa­ny are rel­a­tive­ly trans­par­ent. So, deci­sion-mak­ing pow­er is shared and employ­ees are held account­able for their decisions.

Hor­i­zon­tal or flat Orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture is almost impos­si­ble or just use­less for larg­er com­pa­nies with many projects and employ­ees. Most like­ly, as your busi­ness grows, you will have to choose from oth­er types of orga­ni­za­tion­al systems. 

Pros

  • Fast deci­sion-mak­ing;
  • Excel­lent com­mu­ni­ca­tion and cooperation;
  • High employ­ee motivation.​​​​​

Cons

  • Requires high­ly qual­i­fied and self-dis­ci­plined employees;
  • Not suit­able for large companies;
  • Com­plex tasks are dif­fi­cult to coordinate.​

4️⃣Divi­sion­al Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

In this orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture, the gen­er­al man­ag­er is respon­si­ble for the strat­e­gy and devel­op­ment of the com­pa­ny, and the heads of divi­sions are respon­si­ble for their oper­a­tional man­age­ment. The duties, respon­si­bil­i­ties and tasks of each man­ag­er will depend on the busi­ness specific.


The divi­sion­al orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture is used more often than oth­er types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems by cor­po­ra­tions and large orga­ni­za­tions due to its wider range of prod­ucts and ser­vices. Each divi­sion has its own divi­sion which cor­re­sponds to either prod­ucts or geo­gra­phies and con­tains the nec­es­sary resources and func­tions need­ed to sup­port the prod­uct line and geography.

Such cor­po­ra­tions can focus on var­i­ous divi­sions more close­ly with Divi­sion­al orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture. The main advan­tage of this struc­ture is the inde­pen­dent oper­a­tional flow, that fail­ure of one com­pa­ny does not threat­en the exis­tence of the others.

Pros

  • Quick adap­ta­tion to mar­ket changes
  • Unit auton­o­my
  • Increas­ing the respon­si­bil­i­ty of managers.

Cons

  • Dupli­ca­tion of functions
  • High costs and increase in account­ing taxes
  • Dif­fi­cult cross-depart­ment coordination.

5️⃣Matrix Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

Com­plex orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture, where the per­former simul­ta­ne­ous­ly reports to the func­tion­al man­ag­er and the project man­ag­er. Nar­row spe­cial­ists may be tem­porar­i­ly sub­or­di­nat­ed to the man­ag­er of a spe­cif­ic project. How­ev­er, he is not relieved of his main job.


For exam­ple, a PR spe­cial­ist may have report­ing oblig­a­tions with­in the mar­ket­ing and prod­uct teams. A more com­plex exam­ple for a large com­pa­ny: all engi­neers may be in one engi­neer­ing depart­ment and report to an engi­neer­ing man­ag­er. But these same engi­neers may be assigned to dif­fer­ent projects and might be report­ing to those project man­agers as well.

A Matrix Orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture can be more com­plex than oth­er types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems, so it can cause con­fu­sion about account­abil­i­ty and com­mu­ni­ca­tion, espe­cial­ly among new employ­ees. There are mul­ti­ple report­ing oblig­a­tions in such an orga­ni­za­tion­al structure.

Pros

  • Flex­i­ble and adap­tive orga­ni­za­tion­al structure;
  • Effi­cient use of resources;
  • Allows you to imple­ment com­plex projects.

Cons

  • Com­plex and con­fus­ing due to mix­ing dif­fer­ent types of orga­ni­za­tion­al systems
  • Requires pre­cise coordination
  • May lead to conflicts.

6️⃣Team-based Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

Team-based Orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture is formed of teams work­ing towards a com­mon goal while work­ing on their indi­vid­ual tasks. Such teams include dif­fer­ent spe­cial­ists (man­agers, sup­pli­ers, pro­duc­tion work­ers, tech­nol­o­gists, finance spe­cial­ists) who work toward a com­mon goal while per­form­ing their own spe­cial­ized tasks.


Each team has auton­o­my and inde­pen­dence and is ful­ly respon­si­ble for the results of its work. Because they’re all on the same team and reg­u­lar­ly inter­act with each oth­er, they com­mu­ni­cate ideas faster com­pared with oth­er types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems. Fur­ther, pro­fes­sion­als may reach out to oth­er depart­ments with­in the orga­ni­za­tion for information.

Team Orga­ni­za­tion struc­tures have changed the way many indus­tries work around the world to pro­duce goods and ser­vices coop­er­a­tive­ly. They are less hier­ar­chi­cal and have flex­i­ble struc­tures that rein­force prob­lem-solv­ing, deci­sion-mak­ing, and teamwork.

Pros

  • High employ­ee moti­va­tion and involvement;
  • Fast deci­sion-mak­ing;
  • Flex­i­bil­i­ty and adaptability.​

Cons

  • Requires com­pat­i­ble teams;
  • Not suit­able for all tasks;
  • It is dif­fi­cult to coor­di­nate the work of dif­fer­ent teams.​​​​

7️⃣Net­work Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

A hybrid solu­tion that com­bines divi­sion­al and matrix types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems, their adapt­abil­i­ty and uni­fied man­age­ment of basic func­tions. A net­work struc­ture pri­or­i­tizes col­lab­o­ra­tion and pos­i­tive rela­tion­ships more than hierarchy.


Com­pared with oth­er types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems, net­worked orga­ni­za­tions do not have a hier­ar­chi­cal orga­ni­za­tion­al chart. Instead, they make clus­ters made up of dif­fer­ent depart­ments, busi­ness units, or local offices, which work togeth­er when need­ed and use the full resources of an orga­ni­za­tion to meet cus­tomer goals.

A Net­work orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture is the most ben­e­fi­cial when a com­pa­ny has many divi­sion­al com­po­nents in dif­fer­ent geo­graph­ic loca­tions. It is a sys­tem that involves inter­act­ing with inter­nal and exter­nal par­ties to deliv­er a prod­uct or ser­vice. By focus­ing on core com­pe­ten­cies, each orga­ni­za­tion can offer its best prod­ucts or ser­vices to reach defined goals.

Pros

  • Flex­i­ble and adaptive;
  • Low costs;
  • Allows to quick­ly bring new prod­ucts to market.

Cons

  • Com­plex control;
  • Lim­it­ed coordination;
  • Not suit­able for all niches.

8️⃣Process-based Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

The main fea­ture of the Process-based Orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture is the pri­or­i­ty of process­es rather than func­tions. For such a com­pa­ny, busi­ness is a set of process­es, strate­gic plans, and a sus­tain­able sys­tem of improve­ments. While a strict­ly func­tion­al struc­ture and some oth­er types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems often com­part­men­tal­ize work, a process-based approach pri­or­i­tizes the inter­con­nect­ed­ness of tasks with­in the big­ger picture.


So, the Process-based struc­ture is orga­nized to fol­low a product’s or service’s life cycle. For exam­ple, this orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture can be bro­ken down into R&D, prod­uct cre­ation, order ful­fill­ment, billing and cus­tomer services.

A Process-based orga­ni­za­tion relies on the idea that final prod­ucts or ser­vices are the result of a sequence of inter­nal process­es. All these inter­nal process­es should be orga­nized as well as pos­si­ble. The cus­tomer acqui­si­tion process can’t start until you have a ful­ly devel­oped prod­uct to sell. By the same token, the order ful­fill­ment process can’t start until cus­tomers have been acquired and there are prod­uct orders to fill.

Cus­tomer acqui­si­tion and order ful­fill­ment are two sides of the same coin, with one fuel­ing the oth­er in a con­tin­u­ous loop. These process­es dance in tan­dem, where cus­tomer acqui­si­tion sets the stage, and order ful­fill­ment deliv­ers the per­for­mance. Smooth exe­cu­tion requires both process­es to be planned and coordinated. 

Pros

  • Allows to reduce pro­duc­tion costs;
  • Increas­es effi­cien­cy and speed;
  • Each project par­tic­i­pant under­stands the impor­tance of their work.​​

Cons

  • Pos­si­ble con­flicts between the dif­fer­ent process groups;
  • Could cause com­mu­ni­ca­tion breakdowns.

9️⃣Cir­cu­lar Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

Cir­cu­lar Orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture is based on a demo­c­ra­t­ic hier­ar­chy. Man­agers here are not com­man­ders, but lead­ers. They’re at the cen­ter of the orga­ni­za­tion, spread­ing their vision out­ward. Deci­sions are made col­lec­tive­ly by all mem­bers of the organization.


Unlike the siloed nature of tra­di­tion­al types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems, where depart­ments oper­ate some­what inde­pen­dent­ly, the cir­cu­lar mod­el visu­al­izes every­one as inter­con­nect­ed parts of a uni­fied whole.

A Cir­cu­lar orga­ni­za­tion is fos­ter­ing long-term col­lab­o­ra­tion and cre­ativ­i­ty, intend­ing to empow­er peo­ple. Soft skills, such as atti­tude, team­work, com­mu­ni­ca­tion, and deci­sion-mak­ing capa­bil­i­ties are crit­i­cal for a Cir­cu­lar Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure.

Pros

  • Infor­ma­tion flow­ing freely across the business;
  • Con­nect­ing indi­vid­u­als to the big­ger picture;
  • Encour­ag­ing employ­ees to col­lab­o­rate between departments.

Cons

  • Can be con­fus­ing, espe­cial­ly for new employees;
  • Unclear report­ing lines for new hires.

🔟Line Orga­ni­za­tion­al structure

This is one of the sim­plest and very com­mon types of orga­ni­za­tion­al sys­tems, con­sist­ing of chains, where each lev­el of man­age­ment has clear author­i­ty over the next lev­el down. Deci­sions go down the chain from the top to the deputies, then to depart­ment heads and spe­cial­ists. The chain of com­mand allows each depart­ment head to have con­trol over their departments.


In sim­ple words, line orga­ni­za­tions have clear lines of author­i­ty (chain of com­mand) run­ning from the top of an orga­ni­za­tion down to the low­est lev­els. Inde­pen­dent deci­sions can be tak­en by line offi­cers because of its uni­fied structure.

Unlike oth­er struc­tures, sup­port­ive ser­vices do not take place in these orga­ni­za­tions. The main advan­tage of a line struc­ture can be iden­ti­fied as sta­bil­i­ty to the company.

Pros

  • Sim­ple interaction;
  • Rights and respon­si­bil­i­ties are clear­ly delineated;
  • High lev­el of dis­ci­pline and control;
  • Per­form­ers have oppor­tu­ni­ties for career growth.

Cons

  • Man­agers deal with a wide range of issues, which can reduce their focus;
  • The final deci­sions of spe­cif­ic indi­vid­u­als, includ­ing incor­rect ones, affect the entire company;
  • There is no com­mu­ni­ca­tion between per­form­ers and high­er man­age­ment levels;
  • Oppor­tu­ni­ties for abuse of pow­er in a high position.

Find­ings

There are the most com­mon types of orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­tures, but there is no one ​“right” struc­ture. So, which struc­ture will work best for your com­pa­ny? To find the cor­rect answer, you should know your com­pa­ny very well, from cur­rent roles and teams to the strate­gic plan.

How are job func­tions cur­rent­ly orga­nized, and does it fos­ter com­mu­ni­ca­tion and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty? And what about employ­ee growth? Feed­back from employ­ees, lead­er­ship and oth­er stake­hold­ers can be very use­ful in order to find the right approach from many types of orga­ni­za­tion­al for­mats. But the main goal of the best (for you) orga­ni­za­tion­al struc­ture is to sup­port your strate­gic plans.

Con­sid­er this and don’t doubt about using dif­fer­ent flex­i­ble and hybrid types of orga­ni­za­tion­al frame­work. It can change along the life cir­cle and com­pa­ny devel­op­ment. Find your opti­mal path that will sup­port your pro­duc­tive man­age­ment strategy.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
⇆

esc
Share
или
PM school
Worksection vs Telegram: Which tool is better for work organization
Work chats are a common solution for organizing work. They are used to document tasks and agreements, communicate with clients and team members, share files, etc. However, chats are primarily designed...
18 July 2024   •   8 min read
PM school
Worksection vs Bitrix24: What to choose for project management
Bitrix24 is a russian product. That's why using this system is tantamount to supporting the aggressor country since the beginning of russia's invasion of Ukraine. Bitrix24 is usually chosen by sales teams...
17 July 2024   •   7 min read
PM school
Best Team Management Software of 2024
This article takes a deep dive into the best team management software that will be available in 2024. It shows how these tools can change the dynamics of a team, improve collaboration, and streamline...
11 July 2024   •   11 min read
Get started now
Please enter your real email 🙂
Cancel
Digital UI Gantt chart Comments Kanban Project Management Notifications More 76...
Digital UI Gantt chart Comments Kanban Project Management Notifications Agile Crm Planning Files PM Projects Report Reports Calendar Time tracking Timer Interview Consulting Waterfall Task Management Priorities Reactions IT Emoji Agency Gannt SEO Optimize Sale Marketing Time tracker People Asana Integrations UI Statuses Tags Search Project Folder Teams Integration SMART Entitling Tasks IOS Android Text editor Code Scrum Lean Bureau Mono Architects Y R Vintage Tebin BIM Egineering Labels Video Subtasks Migration Tasks App Filter Сhecklist Connections Privacy Telegram Advice PM secrets Export API TO-DO Google Documents SSL Security Топ 5 UPD Promo actions Tips&tricks Partnership