Introduction
The nature of the Dunkin’s Donuts’ system is determined not so much by its constituent elements but by their relationship between each other and each element individually with the system as a whole. These relations form the structure of the system, the main purpose of which is to ensure its integrity and purposeful development in space and time. The structure of Dunkin’s Donuts is determined by the number and variety of connections between its elements. The more of them, the more diverse they interact with each other, the more complex and more stable the system. Consequently, for Dunkin’s Donuts’ successful functioning in the near and distant future, the system must have a developed organizational structure, and this requirement applies equally to its managed and control subsystems.
Job Design
In order to open five new Dunkin’s Donuts branches in the district, the desired job position would be to have a competent unit manager. The latter is responsible for operating a single store of Dunkin’s Donuts. Job analysis revolves around the fact that as a district manager, it will be highly challenging to micromanage each store. Therefore, assigning outstanding unit managers will be the most plausible solution. The job description is that a unit manager will be responsible for a particular Dunkin’s Donuts store or unit.
He or she must be able to all employees through deliberate control and supervision of key employee figures. In addition, he or she must be able to communicate the desired goals freely. The job specification requires the following competencies, such as stress resistance, initiative, responsibility, customer orientation and information, integrity, self-development, efficiency, cooperation and interaction, and activity management.
The structure of the managed subsystem of the economic system, in the first place, is determined by its purpose or mission and technology of performing the main production functions. The structure of the control subsystem is less dependent on production technology and is largely determined by the direct content of the control functions (de Jong, Parker, Wennekers, & Wu, 2015). Since the content of management functions varies little from object to object, with a certain degree of caution, it is important to address the universality of the governance structure of the economic system in general.
The widespread use of management consulting and the painless migration of managers from organization to organization is quite convincing arguments for the truth of this statement. In general, organizational management involves four types of relationships between elements of the management subsystem, such as responsibility, authority, information support, and rewards. Each form of association, extending to many aspects of the control subsystem, generates its own substructure.
The superposition of these substructures in Dunkin’s Donuts results in the desired organizational management structure. A liability relationship results from responsibilities that are assigned to an employee. At the same time, the obligation can be defined as the result that is expected from the one to whom the corresponding work is entrusted. Therefore, in order to determine the responsibility of an official, it is necessary to draw up a list of the work that he must perform and identify the expected results (Jong et al., 2015).
It should be remembered that one cannot be responsible for any business, not clearly presenting their responsibilities. However, to impose something on an official’s duty does not mean making him or her accountable for it. Responsibility appears only when a person has the opportunity to achieve a result.
Organizational Design
In order to synthesize the correct organizational management structure, it is necessary to describe the process of fulfilling the main function of the organization by its employees, that is, transform the main task into the responsibilities of individual managers. Since the main function is best described in the strategic plan, the basis for the division of responsibilities between the managers of the organization should be put a strategy for its development.
Thus, the organization’s strategy is primary, and its structure is secondary. However, this seemingly obvious rule is only feasible for newly designed organizations. In the vast majority of cases, the opposite is true – the structure of the organization determines its strategy, and the longer the organization exists, the more strictly this pattern is reproduced (Turner & Miterev, 2019). The fact is that the process of changing the managerial structure is extremely complex, painful, and risky for those who started it since it inevitably affects the interests of those in power. At the same time, those who benefit from maintaining their former ways will become enemies of change, and those who can benefit from them, at best, will become their sluggish supporters.
Having assessed the current situation, the unit manager of Dunkin’s Donuts makes a strategic decision, which can be directive or collegial in nature, depending on the adopted management style. However, if this decision does not imply a change in the structure of power, it will never be implemented. If this form is not subjected to periodic analysis and revision, it will become dead and become a brake on any changes. In order to avoid this situation, it is imperative to think over the components of the mechanism for developing and implementing managerial decisions at the very beginning of the synthesis and restructuring of the management system and to properly incorporate them into the basic model of the organizational structure.
This means that any restructuring of management begins with an analysis of the functions of the organization, its development strategy, and the synthesis on this basis of a new organizational structure that will most closely match the current state and objectives of strategic development (Foss, Lyngsie, & Zahra, 2015). In the future, it remains to outline the least painful way to transfer the structure of the organization from one state to another and draw up a detailed schedule of movement along this path.
An effective structure clearly limits the scope of competence of each Dunkin’s Donuts’ unit manager. Paradoxically, only when the range of duties of each official is strictly limited by the official instruction, team members are free to channel their energy in the right direction and be creative in their duties. If the boundaries of responsibilities and authorities are not clearly defined, the manager cannot rely on others to provide the information necessary for him or her and is forced to personally delve into every little thing, losing valuable time needed to develop a high-quality managerial decision.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the given job and organizational designs will greatly assist the district manager of Dunkin’s Donuts. The noted principles of synthesis or restructuring of the organizational structure, along with other principles of organizational management, are designed to ensure the progressive, evolutionary development of the economic system. The latter is a sequential transition from one organization method to another, with each subsequent method characterized by higher levels of integration and differentiation of the organizational structure, and thus has the potential to get rid of the contradictions of the previous level and provide conditions for a better future.
References
Foss, N. J., Lyngsie, J., & Zahra, S. A. (2015). Organizational design correlates of entrepreneurship: The roles of decentralization and formalization for opportunity discovery and realization. Strategic Organization, 13(1), 32-60.
de Jong, J. P. J., Parker, S. K., Wennekers, S., & Wu, C. (2015). Entrepreneurial behavior in organizations: Does job design matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(4), 981-995.
Turner, R., & Miterev, M. (2019). The organizational design of the project-based organization. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 487-498.