Taxonomy of Organizational Design Models and Organizational Performance

Organizational design irrespective of a particular operating model attempts to define the relationships among organizational people, jobs, and departments. It is therefore, a matter of grouping of jobs into functions and divisions. To this important extent, organizational structure is the vehicle through which managers can coordinate the activities of the various functions or divisions to fully exploit their skills and capabilities through integration. Organizational design in terms of structure, departmentalization, differentiation and function is central to organizational performance because when people who perform similar jobs are grouped together, they can learn from observing one another and thus become more specialized and can perform at a higher level in the organization. On the other hand, span of management is an important issue in managerial taxonomy because of the need for attention to the ability and capacity of both the physical, mental, psychological, and emotional requirements of both managers and subordinates in the drive for performance. Thus, effective organizational design goes beyond structures, functions or architecture to embrace the organizational culture and philosophy regarding employees and their job requirements. It involves selecting a combination of organizational system, suitable technology, and control mechanisms that are appropriate for an organization to pursue its strategy most effectively and leading to organizational performance, which means overall performance in terms of quality, profitability, employee and customer satisfaction. The literature review technique of the exploratory research design was adopted for this study, and a positive association was found between organizational design and organizational performance. This investigation was not exhaustive mainly due to lack of current relevant literature. Further study could therefore, examine the relationship between Weberian theory of bureaucracy and organizational performance in the changing management world. This study recommends that organizational leadership should encourage free flow of communication in their organizations to enhance organizational performance.


Introduction
A fundamental step in organizational management is the creation of suitable organizational design to link the various elements that constitute the organization. This design is the overall set of structural architecture used to manage the total organization toward the paths of performance. The success of any organization is often determined by its productivity and also reflected in the satisfaction of employees, customers, stakeholders and suppliers. To some extent, the satisfaction of employees is derived from their job, which is linked to the organizational design and leading to organizational performance or otherwise. Organizational performance relates to improving overall performance in terms of quality, productivity, customer satisfaction, and profitability. This often requires the combination of total quality management, structure, and tools, necessary for enhancing business opportunities and minimizing wasteful costs that can undermine enterprise sustainability. Therefore, organizational design is a means of implementing strategies and plans to achieve organizational goals. The foundation of contemporary thinking about organizational design is related to two perspectives. These are the bureaucratic model and the behavioural model. These early models provide the baseline approaches for organizational design with the aim of increasing organizational performance. Evidence based on the two models suggests that there is no one best approach to organizational design. This is true because what works for one organization may not work for another, and what works for one organization changes as that organization's situation changes. Generally, organizations are not designed and then left intact because most organizations change almost continuously as a result of factors such as events, and people. Also, organizational design for larger organizations is complex and has so many variations in which case, their descriptions must be considerably simplified and explained in simple terms. This is to state categorically that designing an organization is an ongoing process that is really never finished, and it must also be acknowledged that organizational design for larger organizations is more complex than the design for smaller organizations. Organizational design is often derived from the organizing function and relates to the system of relationships formally prescribed and informally developed, to govern the activities of organizational people who interrelate with each other for the purpose of achieving common organizational goals. Organizational design is important in producing a good organizational structure which helps to predict and control behavior of people in the organization. Organizational structure is instrumental in creating the channels for both horizontal and vertical organizational communication and interaction, thereby improving efficiency and effectiveness of organizational performance. Traditional organizational structure is often a byproduct of good organizational design without which any organization can lapse into confusion, conflict and inefficiency. The matter of organizational design or structure is crucial in organization literature because of the principles describing the patterns that would ensure organizational stability and performance. Organizational design involves the processes of subdividing the total organization into subgroups to enhance performance predictability and effectiveness (Khandwalla, 1992;Nwachukwu, 1988;Ugoani, 2018).

Research Problem
A contemporary challenge of organizational design is the limitation placed on it by the organization type, environment or culture. For example, despite the beauty of the universality of management, management remains culture bound. Also, a government organization is most likely to operate a bureaucratic model, while a five star financial supermarket may approve a behavioural model, for the want of speed and efficiency. Often, one person transferring from a government environment to a nongovernmental environment may experience difficulties in terms of adaption and change of operational environment. Again, organizational culture is very likely to impose limitations on organizational design, notwithstanding the transferability of management knowledge. Culture represents a complex pattern of beliefs and expectations of a people which also affects how they manage and want to be managed. Therefore, managing in an English culture will be different from managing in an African culture. This is likely to affect the organizational design, structure, departmentation and even span of management. This is so because different peoples have differences in cultural symbols, shared behaviours, cultural values and shared assumptions all of which often relate to organizational design. Such complications usually conflict with organizational and management intentions that can have adverse effects on both managerial and organizational performance. Escaping from these challenges imposes a responsibility on organizations and managers in the present complex and constantly changing environment to continually search for the appropriate organizational arrangement. To this extent many organizations are even creating specific designs for themselves so as to cope with emerging situations (Khandwalla, 2002). In managerial organizational behavior hierarchies may be delayed in terms of design, as a fashionable criterion for success, but employees may resent any aspects of the management process that limit their individual freedom of action.

Objective of the Study
This study was designed to evaluate the relationship between organizational design and organizational performance.

Significance of the Study
The result of this study will be of immense benefit to students, scholars, management practitioners and the general public in understanding the imperatives of the relationships between organizational design and organizational performance.

Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is a structure of the study idea or concept and how it is designed, in relation to the study problem and relevant literature. It is often stated in a diagrammatic model that presents the major variables and their relationships with the problem of the study. The conceptual framework for this study is shown in figure 1.Organizational design is the process of constructing and adjusting an organization's focus so as to achieve its goals. Usually, the design process begins with the organization's goals in clear perspective. The organization's goals are broken down into tasks, as the basis for jobs. Organizational structure is the linking of departments and jobs within an organization. While organizational design represents the macro structure, the organizational structure represents the micro structure. Once a unified structure is approved within an organization, such organization is set for effective operations. This is followed by relative redesigning processes of differentiation and integration necessary to achieve organizational goals. A major aim of putting an organization in a condition of balance is to improve organizational performance. Organizational performance means the actual output or results of an organization as computed or measured against its targeted outputs, in terms of goals or objectives. Erimife and Agbonwanegbe (2019) believe that organizational performance is the ability of the organization to effectively manage the available resources within the enterprise to achieve predetermined goals and objectives (Al Danen, 2017;Nwadukwe and Court, 2012).

Literature Review
The first activity in organizational design is job design which is the process by which management decides how to divide specific jobs and the tasks that have to be performed to provide customers with products or services. The two important components of every organization are human beings who work in it and the framework. These two elements are combined in an organization of work units within the organization. Factors influencing organizational design almost always include managerial philosophy, government requirements, environmental requirements, technology and other issues (Peter, 1972). For example, job design is the structure of tasks assigned to an individual together with the work methods to accomplish the tasks. Job design is therefore, a process of specifying the content of a job, methods to be used, organizational and personal contents, in terms of the work description, specification and analysis. Hill and Jones (2001) suggest that organizational design involves selecting a combination of organizational structure and control systems by an organization to enable it pursue its strategy most effectively, thereby creating and sustaining competitive advantage. Specifically, the primary role of organizational design and performance architecture is twofold. One is to co-ordinate employees activities, so that they can work together to most effectively implement a strategy that increases competitive advantage. The second is to motivate employees and to provide them with the incentive to achieve superior efficiency, quality, innovation or customer responsiveness and satisfaction. In organizational design, organizational structure and control shape the way people behave and determine how they will act in the organizational setting. A sound organizational structure involves dividing organizational activities into departments, divisions, units and sub-units and defining relationships between the heads and members that make up the units. Typically, a good structure usually; identifies the operating departments, such as sales, production, and finance departments, isolates the services, like, research, human resource, places emphasis on balancing the structure, and shows the role of any committees in the organization. Bhattacharya and Kundu (2013), believe that performance is the ultimate criterion in the assessment of organizations, and thus, the designperformance relationships must therefore, depend both on the business environment and structure. It can be strongly argued that good organizational design allows an organization to improve its ability to create value and to obtain competitive advantage. Consequently, job design, job description, job analysis or job specification to a very large extent depend on organizational design structure, or model (Van, 1976). No matter the choice of model adopted by an organization, a holistic organizational design explores the measures of increasing managerial capacity so that individuals, managers, teams or groups can have the opportunity of performing at the optimum level. Organizational design therefore, has the important responsibility of creating or building an ultimate organizational culture or environment which links teamwork, loyalty, trust and organization citizenship behavior with organizational performance and sustainability. Contemporary management literature is loaded with evidence on how to design and manage organizations, providing suggestions about the appropriate managerial behavior in particular situations. Broadly, the foundation of the universal perspectives about organization design can be traced to two early management perspectives of the bureaucratic model and the behavioural model (Hellriegel et al., 2001;Miller and Friesen, 1984;Nelson and Quick, 2003).

Bureaucratic Model
The Weberian perspective remains part of the early search for an appropriate and effective structure for designing and managing organizations. This model often called the bureaucracy is a model of organization design based on a legitimate and formal system of authority. Not necessarily to be associated with unnecessary red tape, rigidity and passing the buck, the real idea of a bureaucracy is a structure to realign complex and inefficient organizations. It was designed as a structural model that is capable of reducing the inefficiency arising from organizational complexity. Bureaucracy clearly suggests a form of organization that is logical, rational, and efficient. It was evolved as a framework to which all organizations should aspire in terms of management or administration. This model suggests that a good organization is the one characterized by the division of labour, rules and regulations, hierarchy of authority or position, and chain of command from top to bottom, social-distance between subordinates and managers or officers and protection from arbitrary dismissal. Unfortunately, inspite of its theoretical appeal, the theory of bureaucracy as a management model is fiercely criticized as being too idealistic. Antagonists of the model cry out that the leadership process does not have confidence and trust in subordinates who do not also feel free to discuss job problems with their superiors, who in turn do not seek for their opinion in decision-making processes. This is contrary to the original view that a well-defined hierarchy with clearly delineated reporting relationships is an effective way to maintain accountability and to reduce unpredictable and arbitrary behavior or use of authority over others. In relation to organizational design and performance, the theory of bureaucracy has the credit as a formal system of organization and administration designed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. According to Jones and George (2003) the theory of bureaucracy emphasizes five major principles of authority, performance, responsibility, hierarchy and system of rules and operating procedures. They emphasize that rules are formal written instructions that specify actions to be taken under different circumstances in order to enhance performance and the achievement of specific organizational goals. Weber's Principles of Bureaucracy are reflected in figure 2. This model remains very valid today because the congruence of evaluation system and hierarchy of authority is inevitable in organizational performance (Lenz, 1981;Nystorm and Starbuck, 1981).

Behavioural Model
The behavioural model of organization design is oriented toward the human relations approach to management, and against the bureaucratic model, often associated with anti-people behaviours. In other words, the behavioural model is characterized in terms of critical soft processes consistent with performance. These are policies that pay more attention to developing work groups and are concerned about interpersonal processes, leadership, motivation, communication, delegation, decision-making, goal-setting and performance goals. A behavioural model adopts a wide array of motivational processes, and its interaction processes are open and extensive. This model emphasizes that the manager should build supportive relationships, establish high performance goals, and practice group decision-making in efforts to enhance organizational performance. For example, the behavioural approach to performance management attempts to define the behaviours an employee must exhibit to be effective on the job. Certain techniques define them and then managers are required to assess the extent to which employees exhibit them. Like the bureaucratic model, the behavioural approach has both strengths and weaknesses. Its major strength is that it emphasizes human importance by stressing the value of organization's employees. Early proponents of the bahavioural management theory like Likert and Follett paved the way for a more humanistic approach to designing organizations. Unfortunately, behavioural approach, like the bureaucratic model, also argues that there is one best way to design organizations, based on the greater need for organizational performance. However, there is today strong evidence that there is no one best approach to organization design. This is correct because what works for one organization may not work for another, and what works for one organization changes as that organization's situation also changes. Consequently, universal models like the bureaucratic and behavioural models have been supplanted by newer models that consider contingent elements. This gave rise to the situational view of organizational design which is based on the assumption that the optimal design for any given organization depends on a set of relevant situational factors, including environment and technology (Nadler and Tushman, 1997;Scott, 1995).

Contingency Approach
Following the contingency approach to management, the adoption of a particular structure by an organization is dependent on several factors which are within and without the organization. Some of the internal factors that influence organizational design or structure include: size of the organization and employee characteristics. The external factors include: the organization's dependence on external variables like the volatility of the environment and technology. The volatility of an environment can be visualized as a continuum beginning with a highly volatile environment to a highly stable environment. It is believed in the literature that there is a link between environmental volatility and the type of structure adopted by an organization. Proponents of the environmental theory of management content that the behavior of the individual in the organization alone cannot be used to explain the behavior of the organization that can be used to explain the behavior of the individuals, and for an organization to survive, it needs the stability of informal relationship within the organization. Consistent with the creativity concept in management, the contingency theory moved away from the idea that there are principles which could be applied universally and which would lead to effectiveness. It instead proposes the concept that organizational effectiveness or performance is achieved by creating the form, structure and behavior which are appropriate to the organization's environment (Durkhein, 1983;Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967).

Modern Approach to Organizational Design
The modern approach to organizational design centres on three critical factors of departmentalization, and differentiation, span of management, and centralization/decentralization. Differentiation is defined as the state of segmentation of the organization system into sub-systems each of which tends to develop particular attributes in relation to the requirements posed by its relevant external environment. It involves breaking the total organizational task into small units. It is therefore, related to departmentalization which is the combination of related tasks into groups known as departments. The two approaches however, differ, in terms of the approach adopted: whereas differentiation involves breaking down the whole organization into parts, departmentalization has to do with the aggregation of small parts to get a bigger unit. In organizational design, centralization results when all the power for decision-making is in the hands of a single high-level executive, a situation where certain degree of authority for decision-making is not dispersed within the operating units of the organization. For efficiency in organizational performance, modern organizational designs pay special attention to the span of management. Span of management can be defined as the number of subordinates who report to a particular manager. The need for an optimum span of management rests on the recognition that there are mental, physical and psychological constraints that limit the number of subordinates and activities which a manager can effectively manage. Two major issues are often considered in span of management. These are the shape of the structure, and the optimum number of subordinates that a manager can effectively manage. The shape of the structure refers to whether it is a flat or tall structure. A flat structure is characterized by a large number of subordinates reporting to a manager. Also, it has few levels of supervision. On the other hand, a tall structure has few subordinates reporting to a manager and therefore, many levels of supervision. According to Alugbuo (2003) in organizational design, after the determination of the bases of departmentalization is made using function, process, product, geography, customer or matrix as criterion or mixed criteria, the next organizing question to answer is how many departments are to be placed under the supervision of a manager or how many individuals should report to a manager. On the basis of these factors, efforts are made toward identifying the optimum number of subordinates that a manager can effectively supervise which on its part affects the type of structure to be adopted, to achieve overall organizational performance (Som, 2002;2008a;2008b).

System 1 and System 4 Organizations
System 1 and system 4 organizations are common today. For the purpose of this study, these two broad extremes expressed by Griffin, are analyzed for fuller understanding.

System 1 Organization
System 4 Organization i. Leadership process includes no perceived confidence and trust. Subordinates do not feel free to discuss job problems with their superiors who in i. Leadership process includes perceived confidence and trust between superiors and subordinates in all matters. Subordinates feel free to discuss job problems term do not solicit their ideas and opinions.
with their superiors, who in turn solicit their ideas and opinions. ii. Motivational process taps only physical, security, and economic motives through the use of fear and sanctions. Unfavourable attitudes towards the organization prevail among employees.
ii. Motivational process taps full range of motives through participatory methods. Attitudes are favourable towards the organization and its goals.
iii. Communication process is such that information flows downward and tends to be distorted, inaccurate, and viewed with suspicion by subordinates.
iii. Communication process is such that information flows freely through participatory methods. Attitudes are favourable toward the organization and its goals.
iv. Interaction process is closed and restricted. Subordinates have little effect on departmental goals, methods, and activities.
iv. Interaction process is open and extensive. Both superiors and subordinates are able to effect departmental goals, methods, and activities. v. Decision process occurs only at the top of the organization; it is relatively centralized.
v. Decision process occurs at all levels through group processes; it is relatively decentralized. vi. Goal-setting process is located at the top of the organization, discourages group participation.
vi. Goal-setting process encourages group participation in setting high, realistic objectives. vii. Control process is centralized and emphasizes fixing of blame for mistakes.
vii. Control process is dispersed throughout the organization and emphasizes self-control and problem solving. viii. Performance goals are low and passively sought, by managers who make no commitment to developing the human resources of the organization.
viii. Performance goals are high and actively sought by superiors who recognize the necessity for making a full commitment to developing through training the human resources of the organization. Griffin (1999), stresses that managers should understand the basic concepts inherent in the bureaucratic and behavioural models of organization design. He believes that while appreciating the strengths and weaknesses of these models, organizations should also remember that models such as these are not truly applicable to organizations in the present time, and that different approaches are needed to promote creativity and organizational performance.

Methodology
The exploratory investigation research design was adopted for this study. The purpose of this type of study is to develop conjectural statement about the relationships of two or more variables. This may involve investigating relevant literature. Investigating literature implies obtaining secondary data from other published materials. Such secondary data could be secured from academic publications, public publications, private publications, books, and other important documents. The review of previous works throws more light as to meanings and importance of the relationships between variables that have been identified for investigation (Obodoeze, 1996).

Discussion
The taxonomy of organizational design is often associated with the aim to increasing efficiency and productivity. The bureaucratic and behavioural universal models of organizational design strongly support the idea of exploring the one best way of improving organizational performance. These models relate to the system 1 and system 4 organization approaches respectively. Difference between these two perspectives is that while in the system 1, the organizational leadership does not repose any confidence or trust in the subordinates, but in the system 4 approach the reverse is the case. The behavioural model seeks ways to increase the scope of employee participation in goal-setting which leads to goal acceptance, employee commitment and performance. This cannot be overemphasized in good organizational design because goal-setting is designed to improve work performance which is a critical organizational behavior directly connected to organizational performance in terms of production of goods or the delivery of services. It can therefore, be stated that three important behavioural aspects of enhancing organizational performance motivation through goal-setting are: employee participation, managerial commitment, and useful performance feedback. Almost in all areas of worklife, performance is a multidimensional issue, and defining it is a prerequisite to organizational design and job design. The behavioural design promotes goal-setting process which in turn encourages group participation in setting high, realistic objectives, through effective job design. The first building block of organization structure is job design, which translates to the determination of an individual's work related responsibilities. Job design might involve defining areas of decision-making responsibility, identifying goals, and expectations, and establishing appropriate indicators of performance success. This requires as in system 4 approach that organizational leadership builds confidence and trust between superiors and subordinates in all matters. Thus, in the process, subordinates feel free to discuss job problems with their superiors, who in turn solicit for their ideas, opinions, and participation. Despite the elegance of system 1 and system 4 in organizational management they both tap into system 2 and system 3 approaches for organizational effectiveness and performance. For example, system 2 emphasizes the need for networking and team-building, and planning. Also, system 3 pays close attention to problem-solving. System 3 recognizes a problem as a situation that satisfies three conditions. First, a decision-making individual or group has alternative courses of action available; second, the choice made can have a significant effect; and third, the decision-maker has some doubt as to which alternative to be selected. System 3 emphasizes that problems can be resolved, solved or dissolved. In system 3, to resolve a problem is to select a course of action that yields an outcome that is good enough, to solve a problem is to select a course of action that is believed to yield the best possible outcome, and to dissolve a problem is to change the nature, or the environment of the entity in which it is imbedded in order to remove the problem (Ackoff, 1993). The conceptual model in figure 1 showed the two traditional models in organizational design which reflects system 1 and system 4 in organizational design. As noted, organization structure is central to organizational design because organizing is deciding the best way to group organizational elements to achieve organizational goals. Consequently, understanding the nature of these building blocks and the different ways in which they can be configured can have a powerful effect on organizational performance. Therefore, organizational structure represents a set of elements which can be used to configure an organization. Often, management uses six basic building blocks to configure an organization: (i) designing job (ii) grouping jobs (iii) establishing reporting relationships between jobs, (iv) distributing authority among jobs (v) coordinating activity between jobs and (vi) differentiating between positions. The logical starting point is the first building block, which is designing jobs for people within the organization. Related to this is departmentalization which is the combination of smaller units to form a bigger unit. This differs from differentiation which involves the breaking down of the whole organization into subunits. An organization with many subunits is said to be highly differentiated and the one with few subunits is said to have low level of differentiation. This logically brings up the necessity of integration. Integration is the degree to which the various subunits must work together in a co-ordinated manner, to achieve organizational goals. In organizational design, span of management determines the number of interactions an executive or manager can have with subordinates during the working hours. In addition, the relevance of this classic concept especially in modern organizational design lies in the fact that it affects the shape of the organizational structure. This aspect also suggests support for concern for people. People remain major building block in organizations because they are open systems of interacting components, which are people, tasks, technology, and structure. These internal components also interact with components in the organization's task environment. Organizations as open systems have people, technology, structure and purpose which interact with elements in the organization's environment. Achieving success in both the internal and external environments requires leader behaviours that recognize the mental, physical, emotional, and psychological constraints of subordinates and managers. Thus, the bureaucratic leader behaviours appears highly task-oriented as against the behavioural model which expresses a concern for people, which in turn enhances the health and well-being of subordinates in the work environment. Concern for people is a paradigm shift from the mentality of power-distance, and reinforces the view that effective management of people can improve an organization's performance. Organizational performance ensure customer satisfaction, high employee morale, and the maintenance of competitive advantage. Figure 2 depicts Weber's original ideas of bureaucracy. This is relevant to excellent organizational design and not necessarily oriented toward organizational red-tape or inefficiency. Figure 3 is an example of a complex organizational structure and figure 4 is an example of a simple organizational structure. These structures aim at a best way of promoting organizational performance. Project organization is associated with high degrees of job specialization. There are many types of project organization structures. These include Intermix project organizational structure, as shown in figure 5. In this structure, 1, represents the project manager, at the top, 2-14 represent different areas and services' areas, like: 2 project A, 3 project B, and 14, social services and administration. This method is adopted to enhance efficient project execution. Figure 6 showed line and staff organizational structure. At the top is the Chief-Executive Officer (CEO). His deputy and HRM report directly to him. Others are the sales manager, production manager, and financial controller. Classical organization theory suggests that this type of structure offers the best potential for growth, profitability, as well as the achievement of overall organizational performance. As in figure 7, the university structure is composed of the Council, the Vice-Chancellor, and the principal officers as the management team. The team has the important responsibility of efficient institutional governance and administration. Figure 8 and 9 showed the narrow and wide spans of management respectively. Classical organization theory also agrees that a person to whom work has been delegated should be responsible to one senior person only, unless the subordinate carries out more than one function or occupies more than one post in which case he or she should be responsible to one senior person only in respect of each function or post. The narrow span of management offers tight control and close supervision as the manager has limited number of subordinates. It also gives the manager time to think of future matters as he is not burdened with enormous number of present problems. In wide span of management, subordinates are forced to make decisions on their own as the manager is unable to give a close supervision. In both cases however, recent research sees no high significant performance disparities between them. This is so because, number is a function of the nature of activities, the competencies and experience of both managers and subordinates involved with such activities, the amount of the time in reaching decisions and other important environmental factors. Figure 10 showed a matrix organizational structure in a Postgraduate School of a University. At the top is the Dean, who usually reports to the Vice-Chancellor. A matrix design utilizes negotiations among peers to obtain optimal solutions based on individual viewpoints. The foundation of a matrix design is a set of functional departments, and thus, relies on a multiple command structure in attaining optimal performance. From these analyses, this investigation found a positive association between organizational design and organizational performance. This result agrees with the finding of Russo and Harrison (2005) that organizational design is associated with environmental performance. This original result also gives credence to the investigation of Bhattacharya and Kundu (2013) which found a correlation between organizational design and performance. This is the interest of this study.

Implication for Management
Not overlooking the best aspects of bureaucracy with regard to the division of labour, rules and regulations, and hierarchy of authority, management must now build organizations characterized by participative leadership, decision-making, goal-setting and communication. Despite the efficacy of these, it is emphasized that modern management approach must also ensure that appropriate managerial or leadership behaviors should be adopted in tandem with the situation to drive organizational performance.

Recommendations
 Weber never equated the theory of bureaucracy with inefficiency, therefore, top management should ensure the proper application of this fine model for organizational performance.
 Organizational design should almost always take the factors of organizational size, and environment into consideration as measures of promoting organizational performance.  Job specialization should be a feature of modern organizational design to improve performance. Job specialization evolved from the concept of division of labour, and it is a normal extension of organizational growth. This is important because no one person does everything efficiently.  Organizational leadership, for performance effectiveness should ensure that organizational communication process flows freely throughout the organization-upward, downward and laterally.  Departmentalization should be encouraged in complex organizations to promote efficient performance and organizational productivity.

Scope for Further Study
The original idea of Weber in bureaucracy as organizational model has been bastardized and seen to denote inefficiency. Further study should examine any reasons for this tragedy in relation to the behavioural and contingency models in organizational design and performance.

Conclusion
Organizational design is very important to organizational productivity because it determines to a great extent how people perform their jobs in organizations. Organizational design is the structure of the super ordinate organization and is linked to a group of ladders tied together at the top. The rungs on the ladders represent different levels of work, with each ladder representing related work. Through the processes of organizational structure, differentiation, and integration, organizational design specifies methods for each job and delineate how all the jobs fit together in the organization. In relation to this, span of management as a major factor in modern organizational design pays attention to the mental, psychological and emotional constraints of both managers and subordinates in task performance. Designing organizations and work must take into cognizance the importance of job description, specification and analysis to free individual job holders from any encumbrances while on the job. Other factors in organizational design like job enrichment provide performance motivation necessary for organizational performance. Through exploratory literature review research design, the study found positive association between organizational design and organizational performance.