Chapter 11: Organizational Structure and Controls 351
to have in place between strategic and financial controls at specific points in time is
challenging, partly because the relative use of controls varies by type of strategy. For
example, companies and business units of large diversified firms using the cost leadership
strategy emphasize financial controls (such as quantitative cost goals), while companies
and business units using the differentiation strategy emphasize strategic controls (such as
subjective measures of the effectiveness of product development teams).^34 As previously
explained, a corporation-wide emphasis on sharing among business units (as called for
by related diversification strategies) results in an emphasis on strategic controls, while
financial controls are emphasized for strategies in which activities or capabilities are not
shared (e.g., in an unrelated diversification strategy). Those determining how strategies
are to be implemented must keep these relative degrees of balance between controls by
type of strategy in mind when making implementation-related decisions.
11-2 Relationships between Strategy and Structure
Strategy and structure have a reciprocal relationship, and if aligned properly, perfor-
mance improves.^35 This relationship highlights the interconnectedness between strategy
formulation (Chapters 4, 6–9) and strategy implementation (Chapters 10–13). In general,
this reciprocal relationship finds structure flowing from or following selection of the
firm’s strategy. Once in place though, structure can influence current strategic actions
as well as choices about future strategies. The new structure in place at McDonald’s that
we mentioned earlier has the potential to influence implementation of strategies that are,
in part, aimed to better identify and satisfy customers’ changing needs.^36 Overall, those
involved with a firm’s strategic management process should understand that the general
nature of the strategy/structure relationship means that changes to the firm’s strategy
create the need to change how the organization completes its work.
Moreover, because structure can influence strategy by constraining the potential
alternatives considered, firms must be vigilant in their efforts to verify how their struc-
ture not only affects implementation of chosen strategies, but also the limits the structure
placed on possible future strategies. Overall though, the effect of strategy on structure is
stronger than is the effect of structure on strategy.
Regardless of the strength of the reciprocal relationships between strategy and struc-
ture, those choosing the firm’s strategy and structure should be committed to matching
each strategy with a structure that provides the stability needed to use current competi-
tive advantages as well as the flexibility required to develop future advantages. Therefore,
when changing strategies, the firm should simultaneously consider the structure that will
be needed to support use of the new strategy; properly matching strategy and structure
can create a competitive advantage. This process can be influenced by outside forces, such
as significant media attention, which may either hinder the change or foster it.^37
11-3 Evolutionary Patterns of Strategy and Organizational Structure
Research suggests that most firms experience a certain pattern of relationships between
strategy and structure. Chandler^38 found that firms tend to grow in somewhat predictable
patterns: “first by volume, then by geography, then integration (vertical, horizontal), and
finally through product/business diversification”^39 (see Figure 11.1). Chandler interpreted
his findings as an indication that firms’ growth patterns determine their structural form.
