SCSR Journal of

Development
ISSN: 2384‐5341          www.scholarconsult.com
Volume 1, Issue 3 (Special Issue), pp 28 ‐ 41

Organizational Structure, Function and

Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in
Nigeria

Ogidi, Armstrong Emmanuel*

*
Department of Agribusiness, College of Management Sciences, University of Agriculture, P.M.B. 2373, Makurdi,
Nigeria, E-mail: armstrongdemic@gmail.com, Tel: +2347057240174, +2348026524980, +2348036228671

© Ogidi, A. E. (2014).
This is a research/review paper, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial
3.0 Unsupported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/, permitting all non-commercial use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Submit your articles to scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com

Special Issue Theme: “Research and Innovation for Development”

© www.scholarconsult.com (2014). SCSR Journal of Development ISSN: 2384-5341
 Special Issue
 SCSR Journal of Development (SCSR-JD)
 
ISSN: 2384-5341. Volume 1, Issue 3 (July, 2014), pp 28 - 41
www.scholarconsult.com
Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of

Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

Ogidi, Armstrong Emmanuel

Department of Agribusiness, College of Management Sciences, University of Agriculture,
P.M.B. 2373, Makurdi, Nigeria

Abstract: This study examined the Organizational structure, function and performance of
agribusiness enterprises in Nigeria. The subjects in this study consisted of key employees from
141 agribusiness companies. After Taro Yemen samplings technique was employed, a sample
frame of 104 agribusiness companies was trimmed out of 141. The relaxation of formalization
and centralization variable implies that at the time this study was carried out, the agribusiness
enterprises were under the influence of environment-of-business forces. In order for the
businesses to adjust or tackle the turbulent nature of the environment, they had to strategically
flatten their organizations to give way for an organic structure to offset the perturbation. Minute
tasks performed by specialists in the agribusiness enterprises greatly improved communication
and the copying of improved procedures, processes and technologies within the organization.
Agribusiness enterprises rely on shared goals for control and lateral co-ordination, thereby
reducing sub-optimization within departments to the minimum. There should be an increased
exchange of communication between units and departments so as to allow for free flow of
information, management should make effort in directing employee work performance towards
desired organizational objectives so as to reduce sub-optimization within the departmental units.
Boundary spanners should be installed and functional departments synchronized with the
environment of business to reduce perturbations. Management should also monitor
technological changes that would standardize tasks performed in a uniform manner.
Key words: Agribusiness, function, organizational structure, performance, organic

1. Introduction
Organizational structures occupy a very important place in the management of organizations.
Without organizational structures, the organization may not be able to function and perform its
goals very well. Many agribusiness enterprises have used organic strategies to reshape their
structures and functions, which have greatly enhanced better performance over the years (Ogidi
and Adekitan, 2013). An example is the development of the cereal conversion plant by Cadbury
Nigeria PLC to replace imported barley with local cereal for its glucose and malt requirements
(Alabi, 1991; Ottih and Orupabo, 2002; Ogidi and Adekitan, 2013). Nestle Foods Nigeria PLC’s
modern foods processing factory is now fed with raw materials from its farms (Ogidi and
Adekitan, 2013). The two firms of Nigeria Breweries PLC and Guinness Nigeria PLC, have
converted their barley-based plants to accommodate locally produced sorghum and maize (The

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     28 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

Guardian, 1991; Ottih and Orupabo, 2002). Over the years, Olam Nigeria Ltd. had developed an
effective retail sales and distribution structure, and executed a differentiated product
development and marketing strategy in selected categories and markets (Value Fronteira, 2012).
Recent studies have empirically demonstrated how integration positively impacts organizational
performance (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Rosenzweig, Roth and Dean, 2003; Vickery,
Jayaram, Droge and Calantone, 2003; Koufteros, Vonderembse, and Jayaram, 2005; Koufteros,
Cheng, and Lai, 2007; Morgan, Swink, Narasimhan and Wang, 2007). Agribusiness
organizations have to take a cue from Best-in-Class agribusinesses by copying or emulating
technology solutions, innovations that manage operations across maintenance, production,
quality, and inventory management with the goal being to improve material utilization, asset
utilization and continuous improvement team effectiveness (Ogidi, Abah and Ezeorah, 2012a
and Ogidi, 2014).
1.1. Objective of the Study
The main objective of the study is to examine the organizational structure, function and
performance of agribusiness enterprises in Nigeria. Specifically, the study was carried out in
order to:
(i). find out the importance of organizational structure and the function carried out by
agribusiness enterprises;
(ii). examine the function exhibited by agribusiness enterprise and organizational
performance; and
(iii). ascertain if organizational structure influences the performance of agribusiness
enterprises in Nigeria.
1.2. Research Hypothesis
H01: There is no significant relationship between organizational structure and function carried
out by agribusiness enterprises.
H02: There is no significant relationship between function exhibited by agribusiness
enterprises and organizational performance.
H03: There is no significant relationship between organizational structure and the performance
of agribusiness enterprises.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Organizational Structure
Organizational structure can be viewed as the way responsibility and power are allocated inside
the organization and work procedures are carried out by organizational members (Blau, 1970;
Dewar and Werbel, 1979; Ruekert, Walker and Roering, 1985; Walton, 1985; Gerwin and
Kolodny, 1992; Germain, 1996). For Thompson (1965), organizational structure is the
organization’s internal pattern of relationships, authority, and communication. Similarly,
Goldhaber et al. (1984) defined organizational structure as “the network of relationships and
roles existing throughout the organization”.
scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     29 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

2.2. Theoretical Review

Burns and Stalker (1961) ascertained that mechanistic systems were characterized by
centralization of authority and control, a high degree of task specialization and primarily vertical
communication; organic systems on the other hand, are characterized by a higher degree of task
interdependence, greater decentralization of control and authority, and horizontal
communication. Strategy has for many years been known as a major influence on structuring; the
landmark study by Chandler (1962) caused this recognition. Lawrence and Lorsch (1969)
discovered that food companies were characterized by a moderate amount of instability in the
environment. The relationship between structure and performance, however, is more tenuous and
is mediated by many other organizational constructs (Teixeira, Koufteros and Peng, 2012). Many
authors argue the existence of this relationship. Porter and Roberts (1976) and Frederickson
(1986) theorizes that organizational structure strongly influences communication and facilitates
the flow and processing of information, while Koufteros et al. (2007) and Kim (2005) provide
empirical evidence about the relationship between organizational structure and internal
communication. Organizational structure has many dimensions (Damanpour, 1991), and some of
them affect communication, we drawn on a limited number of variables to study their
relationships (Montana and Charnov, 1993).
After the objectives of an organization are established, the functions that must be
performed are determined; personnel requirements are assessed and the physical resources
needed to accomplish the objectives determined (Montana and Charnov, 1993). These elements
must then be coordinated into a structural design that will help achieve the objectives of the
organization after, appropriate responsibilities are assigned. Determining the functions to be
performed involves consideration of division of labor; this is usually accomplished by a process
of departmentalization. Literature has strongly suggested the relationship between organizational
integration and organizations’ performance outcomes (Ettlie and Reza, 1992; Frohlich and
Westbrook, 2001; Koufteros et al. 2007; Koufteros et al. 2005; Paulraj and Chen, 2007; Sarah
and Stock, 2003; Tesarolo, 2007). Organizations with high levels of internal and external
integration are more likely to regularly examine their performance compared to other
competitors that do not integrate, because they are constantly interacting and receiving
information from their external partners. Also, these organizations can identify customers’ needs
more quickly because they are more likely exposed to feedback. In addition, integration with
suppliers helps improvement of innovation, cooperation, and problem solving (Frohlich and
Westbrook, 2001), allowing organizations to acquire and mobilize complementary knowledge
resources (Koufteros et al. 2007). In fact, the lack of internal and external supply chain
integration has been recognized by many authors as sources of potential problems such as cost
increase as well as quality and delivery problems (Clark 1996; Flynn, Schroeder and Flynn,
1999; Wheelwright and Bowen, 1996).
Internal integration reduces uncertainty by improving communication between
departments. Cross-functional teams composed of specialized employees with different
background and knowledge can share information and improve the decision making process.
Because of the early involvement of participants, this enriched decision making process helps to
clarify product requirements before money has been invested on a new product (Gupta and Wi-
lemon, 1990). Information sharing and technology help teams to develop better product and new
features, enhancing product performance (Rosenthal and Tatikonda, 1992). For example,

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     30 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

interactions between marketing and manufacturing tend to have strongly effects on product
design quality (Swink and Song, 2007). Other studies have demonstrated the positive impact of
internal integration on delivery time performance (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995; Clark and Fuji-
moto, 1991; Swink et al. 2007; Tesarolo, 2007).
  Resent studies emphatically stressed the importance of benchmarking taxonomy variables
or components (i.e. internal, competitive, functional and generic) on agribusiness product quality
(Ogidi et al. 2012a; Ogidi, Abah and Ezeorah, 2012b). Agribusiness firms do not need to re-
invent the wheel; benchmarking is a strategic tool that can enhance performance.

2.3. Conceptual Framework

System-Structural Perspective emphasizes that, while organization theory today is a mosaic of
different theoretical approaches, perhaps the most commonly accepted conceptual framework is
the system-structural view of organizational design and performance (Zey-Ferrel, 1981; Ruekert,
Walker and Roering, 1985). This approach has as its foundation many of the concepts contained
in Weber’s (1974) notions of bureaucracy, which suggests that the structure of an organization
determines the performance of the system (Ruekert et al. 1985). Within this perspective, the
structural dimensions of centralization, formalization and specialization/differentiation are
considered to be of central importance in understanding the functioning of systems (Dalton et al.
1980; Hage 1965, Pugh et al. 1968; Van de Ven 1976). Some organizational structures used in
this study are:

 Formalization: This refers to the amount of written documentation. It comprises of written

procedures, decision rules, job descriptions, policy manuals, and rules and regulations (Ottih,
2006; Ruekert et al. 1985).
 Standardization: This refers to the extent to which similar tasks are performed in a uniform
manner across the firm. This simply means that the methods by which things are done are
predetermined, and workers do not use their own initiative.
 Specialization: This pertains to the extent to which organizational tasks are divided into
minute tasks (Ottih, 2006; Davenport and Nohria, 1994; Doll and Vonderembse, 1991;
Gerwin and Kolodny, 1992; Vonderembse, Ragunathan, and Rai 1997); it is also the degree
to which departments and employees are functionally specialized or integrated (Teixeira et
al. 2012).
 Centralization: This is the extent to which decisions are made exclusively by the top
management; when work-related decisions are made at the activity centers, the organization
is said to be decentralized (Ottih, 2006; 1984; Hall, 1977; Fry and Slocum, 1984;). Cen-
tralization can be seen as an increase of decisions make at higher hierarchical levels within
organizations and a decrease of participation of employees in the decision making process
(Daft, 1995; Doll and Vonderembse, 1991; Germain, 1996; Walton, 1985; Zaltman and
Duncan, 1977). It can also be conceptualized as a locus of authority and decision-making in
the organization (Teixeira et al. 2012). Environment plays an important role for locus of
authority since organizations in uncertainty environments should delegate decisions to lower
hierarchy levels in order to quickly adjust to changing situations (Doll and Vonderembse,
1991).

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     31 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

 Flatness of Organization: Flatness of organization hierarchy is conceptualized as the degree

to which an organization has many or few levels of management hierarchy (Burns and
Stalker, 1961). Walton (1985) argues that a traditional command and control model is
characterized by an expanded hierarchy that may be a by-product of the systems and is
justified by the need to control employee behavior. On the other hand, a commitment model
is characterized by a management system that tends to be flat, relies upon shared goals for
control and lateral coordination, bases influence on expertise and information rather than
position, and minimizes status differences (Teixeira et al. 2012). Organic organizations tend
to have few levels of hierarchy and be characterized by more efficient and effective flows of
information and decision-making; a flat organization can reduce problems of information
delays, distortion and corruption as information flows from one level to another (Teixeira et
al. 2012).
According to Ottih (2006), there are some basic functions that organization structures are
supposed to perform and these functions are expected to feature predominantly in the minds of
designers as the basic objectives in the design effort. Some of these functions are:

 Co-ordination: This refers to the ability of management to direct employee work

performance towards desired objectives (Ottih, 2006).
 Communication: Communication is the exchange of information among organizational
participants and units; some structures restrict communication to the vertical type, some
permit a free-flow of information (Ottih, 2006).
 Benchmarking: This concept is extended to address broader inter-organizational
performance gaps arising from demonstrable competitive advantage and identified two
components that needed to be benchmarked: the first being evident external performance
(competitiveness) and the second being evident internal performance (processes) (Zairi,
1994; Zairi, 1997). According to Watson (1993), benchmarking concept should be viewed as
a process of organizational adaptation, not adoption – not simply a question of copying
others, but learning how to improve by sharing ideas. Leibfried et al. (1992) defined
benchmarking as ‘an external focus on internal activities, functions or operations in order to
achieve continuous improvement.’
 Integration: this process allows organizations to mobilize and acquire complementary
resources from their partners, improving their activities and achieving a better organizational
performance (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen, 1997; Teixeira et al. 2012).
The system-structural perspective is concerned with the impact of organizational structure and
functions on the performance of agribusiness systems, where performance is also viewed as a
multidimensional construct involving system effectiveness, efficiency, innovation/adaptation and
quality of products.

 Effectiveness: this involves the degree to which organizational goals are reached (Ruekert et
al. 1985).
 Efficiency: this considers the relationship between organizational outputs and the inputs
required between organizational inputs required to reach those outputs (Ruekert et al. 1985).
It is also referred to as the judicious use of resources within the organization.

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     32 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

 Innovation/Adaptation: This pertains to the ability of the organization to perceive

environmental changes and introduce internal changes to adapt to those in the environment.
Some organizational structural forms are too internally focused to readily perceive
environmental changes (Ottih, 2006). Addictiveness reflects the ability of the organization to
adapt to changes in its environment (Ruekert et al. 1985).
 Quality: The American Society for Quality Control defines quality as: the totality of features
and characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied
needs (Kotler and Keller, 2006).
The proposed conceptual model of the relationship between organizational structure,
functions and performance of agribusiness systems is presented in Figure 1.
 

    Organizational
Function
 

  Communication

  Organizational Co-ordination
Structure Organizational
H2 Performance
Benchmarking
H1
Formalization  Effectiveness  
Integration

Standardization  Efficiency  

Specialization  Innovation/
adaptation 
Centralization 
Quality 
H3
Flatness 

Figure 1: Conceptual model of the relationship between organizational structure, function and performance of
agribusiness systems

.3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Respondents and Sample Frame
The subjects in this study consisted of key employees from 141 agribusiness companies listed in
6000 Nigeria Companies Profiles (www.6000profile.com) and Lists of Companies (www.list-of-
companies.org). This particular group is preferred because, the corporations are generally leaders
in innovations and boasts of Strategic Business Units (SBUs) that constantly compete in the
environment. After Taro Yemen samplings technique was employed, a sample frame of 104
agribusiness companies was trimmed out of 141.

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     33 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

3.2. Validity and Reliability of Instrument

A prerequisite in designing a good questionnaire is to decide what to measure. Content validity
ensured that the questionnaire fully exhausted all that are implied by the research questions in the
questionnaire objectively, paying particular attention to the relevance of the subject matter and
their coverage of the entire topic study. Reliability is the consistency between independent
measurements of the same phenomenon. It is the stability, dependability and predictability of a
measuring instrument. It is also the accuracy or precision of a measuring instrument.
3.3. Data Collection
The main instrument for data generation and analysis was structured research questionnaire. Care
was taken in the wording used, sequence of items, expert opinion and the questions being
respondent friendly. Effort was also made to minimize the problem of developing a weak
research instrument. All items were measured using a three-point Likert-like scale: 1= low, 2 =
neutral and 3 = high.
3.4. Data Analysis
The extrapolated data from questionnaires were analyzed using computer-based Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21 for Windows. Spearman’s Rank Order
Correlation was used to determine if there are significant relationships between exogenous and
endogenous variables of hypotheses one to three.

4. Findings and Discussion

Four months later, 58 usable questionnaires were received, after 104 copies were e-mailed to
respective chosen companies. A success rate of 55.77% was achieved from questionnaire
distribution and retrieval (see Table 1). This low response rate may be due to the fact that
respondents were not willing to respond to unsolicited surveys. A few of the companies had sent
(e-mailed) policies that ruled against filling survey questionnaires.
Table 1: Questionnaire E-Mailed and Received From Industry Sectors under Study

Industry Sector Survey Population Company’s Participation % of participation

success
No Yes

Agricultural greenhouses 16 10 6 5.77

Agricultural product stock 11 8 3 2.88

Animal extract 2 2 0 0.00

Animal feed 8 5 3 2.88

Aquaculture equipment 3 3 0 0.00

Beverage 7 4 3 2.88

Food processing and production 39 4 35 33.65

Farm machinery and equipment 5 3 2 1.92

grains 3 2 1 0.96

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     34 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

Logs 1 1 0 0.00

Plant and animal oil 4 3 1 0.96

Plant fiber 1 1 0 0.00

Poultry and livestock 4 0 4 3.85

Total 104 46 58 55.77

4.1. Hypothesis One

A strong relationship exists between the following variables: specialization and benchmarking
(Rho=0.728), specialization and communication (Rho=0.722), centralization and integration
(Rho=0.688). This feat was mostly initiated by the specialization variable (see Table 2). This
implies that the minute tasks performed by specialists in the agribusiness enterprises have greatly
improve communication and the copying of improved procedures, processes and technologies
within the organization.
A moderate relationship was noticed among the following: centralization and integration
(Rho=0.620), standardization and benchmarking (Rho=0.618), standardization and integration
(Rho=0.612), standardization and co-ordination (Rho=0.610), flatness and co-ordination
(Rho=0.539), formalization and communication (Rho=0.539), flatness and communication
(Rho=0.517), flatness and integration (Rho=0.508), specialization and integration (Rho=0.618),
flatness and benchmarking (Rho=0.480), formalization and benchmarking (Rho=0.409). This
moderate effect was mostly initiated by two variables i.e. flatness and standardization variables.
This implies that agribusiness enterprises initiate organic management structure, which enables
better efficient and effective flow of information and decision making; it also relies on shared
goals for control and lateral co-ordination, thereby reducing sub-optimization within departments
to the minimum. Another reason is that tasks within these enterprises are performed in a uniform
manner and operations are pre-determined before they are carried out.
A less impressive weak relationship was exhibited by the following: centralization and
co-ordination (Rho=0.342), formalization and integration (Rho=0.288), formalization and
communication (Rho=0.281), formalization and co-ordination (Rho=0.231), centralization and
communication (Rho=0.224), centralization and benchmarking (Rho=0.215). This abysmal
effect was mostly demonstrated by centralization and formalization variables. This implies that
written procedures, job description and rules and regulations were relaxed; decisions were no
longer made exclusively by top management and the implementation of decisions was shared
between top and middle managers within the agribusiness enterprises. However, the decision rule
is to accept the alternative hypothesis, which says that, “There is significant relationship between
organizational structure and function carried out by agribusiness enterprises.”
Table 2: Summary of Correlation Coefficient between Organizational Structure and Organizational Function

Organizational Structure Organizational Function

Communication Co-ordination Benchmarking Integration
Formalization 0.281** 0.231** 0.409** 0.228**
Standardization 0.532** 0.610** 0.618** 0.612**
Specialization 0.722** 0.688** 0.728** 0.506**
Centralization 0.224** 0.342** 0.215** 0.620**
Flatness 0.517** 0.539** 0.480** 0.508**

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     35 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Source: Research Instrument – SPSS Version 16

4.2. Hypothesis Two

The second hypothesis indicates that strong relationship exists among some of the variables:
benchmarking and innovation/adaptation (Rho=0.819), benchmarking and quality (Rho=0.731),
benchmarking and efficiency (Rho=0.720), benchmarking and effectiveness (Rho=0.654). This
strong relationship was championed by benchmarking variable (see Table 3); it shows that the
agribusiness enterprises were vibrant in copying past internal best performances and also
copying external best-in-class exemplars.
Moderate relationships were also visible in the second hypothesis: integration and
innovation/adaptation (Rho=0.637), integration and quality (Rho=0.634), integration and
effectiveness (Rho=0.528), Integration and efficiency (Rho=0.524). Integration was most
prominent in this relationship. It also implies that agribusiness enterprises mobilized and
acquired complementary resources from partners (suppliers).
An abysmal performance was indicated by some variables: co-ordination and quality
(Rho=0.374), co-ordination and innovation/adaptation (Rho=0.330), co-ordination and efficiency
(Rho=0.218), co-ordination and effectiveness (Rho=0.144). Communication and co-ordination
had more effect on organizational performance compared to other function variables. This
implies that agribusiness enterprises practiced the organic structure, which is characterized by
free flow of information and the managers had the ability to direct employee work performance
towards desired objectives. However, the decision rule is to accept the alternative hypothesis,
which says that, “There is significant relationship between functions exhibited by agribusiness
enterprises and organizational performance.”
Table 3: Summary of Correlation Coefficient between Organizational Functions and Organizational Performance

Organizational Functions Organizational Performance

Effectiveness Efficiency Innovation/Adaptation Quality
Communication 0.495** 0.472** 0.466** 0.467**
Co-ordination 0.144** 0.218** 0.330** 0.374**
Benchmarking 0.654** 0.720** 0.819** 0.731**
Integration 0.528** 0.524** 0.637** 0.634**
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Source: Research Instrument – SPSS Version 16

4.3. Hypothesis Three

The third hypothesis was characterized by some strong relationships: flatness and
innovation/adaptation (Rho=0.828), specialization and efficiency (Rho=0.808), flatness and
efficiency (Rho=0.756), flatness and effectiveness (Rho=0.749), flatness and quality
(Rho=0.741), specialization and innovation/adaptation (Rho=0.724), specialization and
effectiveness (Rho=0.715), specialization and quality (Rho=0.656). Table 4 shows that flatness
of organization and specialization, were most prominent in the relationships that exist in
hypothesis three. The implication is that organic structures are present in the agribusiness
enterprises used in this study, which helps in reducing information delays, distortions and
corruption as information flows from one level to another. Minutes tasks and level of job
qualification in the agribusinesses were quite high.

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     36 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

Moderate relationships were exhibited by: formalization and quality (Rho=0.574),

standardization and innovation/adaptation (Rho=0.518), standardization and efficiency
(Rho=0.509), standardization and quality (Rho=0.478), formalization and efficiency
(Rho=0.468), standardization and effectiveness (Rho=0.456). It is obvious that formalization and
standardization were most prominent in the relationships of hypothesis three (see Table 4). This
implies that written procedures, job descriptions, rules and regulations were moderately utilized
in the agribusiness enterprises. The tasks performed in the same agribusiness organizations were
also moderate.
Poor relationships were also shown by some of the variables: centralization and
efficiency (Rho=0.368), centralization and quality (Rho=0.309), centralization and effectiveness
(Rho=0.302), formalization and innovation/adaptation (Rho=0.256), centralization and
innovation/adaptation (Rho=0.242). Centralization took prominence in this abysmal performance
(see Table 4). This implies that decisions were not exclusively made by top management in the
agribusinesses; indicating once more that organic structure was utilized to achieve efficiency an
effective performances as at the time this study was carried out. However, the decision rule is to
accept the alternative hypothesis, which says that, “There is significant relationship between
organizational structure and the performance of agribusiness enterprises.”
Table 4: Summary of Correlation Coefficient between Organizational Structure and Organizational Performance

Organizational Structure Organizational Performance

Effectiveness Efficiency Innovation/Adaptation Quality
Formalization 0.471** 0.468** 0.256** 0.574**
Standardization 0.456** 0.509** 0.518** 0.478**
Specialization 0.715** 0.808** 0.724** 0.656**
Centralization 0.302** 0.368** 0.242** 0.309**
Flatness 0.749** 0.756** 0.828** 0.741**
Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Source: Research Instrument – SPSS Version 16

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

The relaxation of formalization and centralization variable implies that at the time this study was
carried out, the agribusiness enterprises were under the influence of environment-of-business
forces. In order for the businesses to adjust or tackle the turbulent nature of the environment,
they had to strategically flatten the organization to give way for an organic structure to offset the
perturbation. From our findings, the study concludes as follows:
a) The minute tasks performed by specialists in the agribusiness enterprises have greatly
improved communication and the copying of improved procedures, processes and
technologies within the organization. Agribusiness enterprises initiate organic
management structure, which enables better efficient and effective flow of information
and decision making; it also relies on shared goals for control and lateral co-ordination,
thereby reducing sub-optimization within departments to the minimum. Another reason is
that tasks within these enterprises are performed in a uniform manner and operations are
pre-determined before they are carried out. Written procedures, job description and rules
and regulations were relaxed; top and middle managers and key employees took
decisions within the agribusiness enterprises.

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     37 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

b) Agribusiness enterprises were vibrant in copying past internal best performances and also
copying external best-in-class exemplars; they mobilized and acquired complementary
resources from partners (suppliers). These organizations also practiced the organic
structure, which is characterized by free flow of information and the managers had the
ability to direct employee work performance towards desired objectives.
c) Organic structures are present in the agribusiness enterprises used in this study, which
helps in reducing information delays, distortions and corruption as information flows
from one level to another. Minutes tasks and level of job qualification in the
agribusinesses were quite high. The tasks performed in the agribusiness organizations
were moderate. Decisions were not exclusively made by top management in the
agribusinesses; indicating once more that organic structure was utilized to achieve
efficiency an effective performances as at the time this study was carried out.
From our conclusion, the following recommendations are imperative:
a) There should be an increased exchange of communication between units and departments
so as to allow for free flow of information.
b) Management should make effort in directing employee work performance towards
desired organizational objectives so as to reduce sub-optimization within the
departmental units.
c) Boundary spanners should be installed and functional departments synchronized with the
environment of business to reduce perturbations, and management should also monitor
technological changes that would standardize tasks performed in a uniform manner.

References
Alibi, M. (1991). Industrial Capacity Utilization Dips in First Half. Financial Guardian,
Monday, Nov. 4:15.
Blau, P.M. (1970). Decentralization in Bureaucracies. In M. N. Zald (Ed.), Power in
Organizations. Nashville, TN: Vanderbuilt University Press.
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product Development: Past Research, Present
Findings, and Future Directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2):343-378.
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American
Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge M.A: MIT Press. p.21
Clark , K. B. (1996). Competing through Manufacturing and New Manufacturing Paradigm: Is
Manufacturing Strategy Passe? Production and Operations Management, 5(1):42-58.
Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Daft, R.L. (1986). Organizational Theory and Design. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing
Company. pp.15-18.
Dalton, D.R., Todor, W.D., Spendolini, M.J., Fielding, G.J. and Porter, L.W. (1980).
Organizational Structure and Performance: A Critical Review. Academy of Management
Review, 5(1):49-64.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational Innovation: A Meta-analysis of Effects of Determinants

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     38 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

and Moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3):555-590.

Davenport, T., and Nohria, N. (1994). Case Management and the Integration of Labor. Sloan
Management Review, 35(2), 11-23.
Dewar, R., and Werbel, J. (1979). Universalistic and Contingency Predictions of Employee
Satisfaction and Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24:426-448.
Doll, W. J., and Vonderembse, M. A. (1991). The Evolution of Manufacturing Systems:
Towards the Post-industrial Enterprise. Omega: International Journal of Management
Science, 19(5):401- 411.
Ettlie, J.E., and Reza, E.M. (1992). Organizational Integration and Process Innovation. Academy
of Management Journal, 35(4):795-827.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R. G., and Flynn, E.J. (1999). World Class Manufacturing: An
Investigation of Hayes and Wheelwright’s Foundation. Journal of Operations
Management, 17: 49-269.
Frederickson, J. W. (1986). The Strategic Decision Process and Organizational Structure.
Academy of Management Review, 11(2):280-297.
Frohlich, Markham T., and Westbrook, Roy. (2001). Arcs of Integration: An International Study
of Supply Chain Strategies. Journal of Operations Management, 19:185-200.
Fry, L. W. and Slocum, J. W. (1984). Technology, Structure, and Workgroup Effectiveness: A
Test of a Contingency Model. Academy of Management Journal, 27:221-246.
Germain, R. (1996). The Role of Context and Structure in Radical and Incremental Logistics
Innovation Adoption. Journal of Business Research, 35, 117-127.
Gerwin, D., and Kolodny, H. (1992). Management of Advanced Manufacturing Technology:
Strategy, Organization, and Innovation. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Goldhaber, G.M., Dennis, H.S., Richetto, G.M. and Wiio, O.A. (1984). Information Strategies:
New Pathways to Management Productivity. New York: Ablex.
Gupta, A. K. and Wilemon, D. L. (1990). Accelerating the Development of Technology- based
New Products. California Management Review, 32(2):24-44.
Hage, J. (1965). An Axiomatic Theory of Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,
10:289-320.
Hall, R. W. (1977). Organizations: Structure and Process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Kim, H. S. (2005). Organizational structure and internal communication as antecedents of
employee-organization relationships in the context of organizational justice: A multilevel
analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Maryland. College Park.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K. (2006). Marketing Management. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall. pp 729.
Koufteros, X.A., Cheng, T.C. E. and Lai, K. (2007). “Black-box” And “Gray-box” Supplier
Integration in Product Development: Antecedents, Consequences, and the Moderating
Role of Firm Size. Journal of Operations Management, 25, 847-870.
Koufteros, X.A., Nahm, A.Y., Cheng, T. C. E. and Lai, K. (2007). An Empirical Assessment of a
Nomological Network of Organizational Design Constructs: From Culture to Structure to
Pull Production to Performance. International Journal of Production Economics,
106(2):468-492.
Koufteros, X.A., Vonderembse, M. A. and Jayaram, Jayanth. (2005). Internal and External
Integration for Product Development: The Contingency Effects of Uncertainty,
Equivovality, and Platform Strategy. Decision Sciences, 36(1):97-133.

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     39 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1969). Organization and Environment. Homewood, I.L. Irwin.
Montana, P. and Charnov, B. (1993). Management: A Streamlined Course for Students and
Business People. Hauppauge, New York: Barron’s Business Review. pp.155-169.
Ogidi, A.E., Abah, D.A. and Ezeorah, E.N. (2012a). The Impact of Benchmarking on
Product Performance to Quality Standards: A Study of Small and Medium Scale
Agribusiness Enterprises in Benue State, Nigeria. Journal of Management of
Entrepreneurial Studies, 1(1 and 2): 73-83.
Ogidi, A.E., Abah, D.A. and Ezeorah, E.N. (2012b). Evaluation of Benchmarking Taxonomy on
Product Conformance among Agribusiness Enterprises in Benue State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Agriculture, 4(3):138-146.
Ottih, L.O. (2006). Organization theory: Structure, design and process. Port Harcourt,
Nigeria: Amex Publications. 119 pp.
Ottih, L.O. and Orupabo, T.J. (2002). The functional structure and corporate innovation.
Nigerian Business and Social Review, 1(1): 91-106.
Paulraj, A. and Chen, I.J. (2007). Strategic Buyer-supplier Relationships, Information
Technology and External Logistics Integration. The Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 43(2):2-14.
Porter, L. and Roberts, K. (1976). Communication in Organizations. In M. Dunnette (Ed.).
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1553-1589). Chicago:
Rand McNally and Company.
Rosenthal, S.R. and Tatikonda, M.V. (1992). Competitive Advantage through Design Tools and
Practices. In G. Susman (Ed.), Integrating design for manufacturing for competitive
advantage. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J. Hinings, C.R. and Turner, C. (1968). Competitive Strategy. New York:
The Free Press.
Ruekert, R.W., Walker, O.C. Jr., amd Roering, K.J. (1985). The Organization of Marketing
Activities: A Contingency Theory of Structure and Performance. Journal of Marketing,
49:13-25.
Sarah, J.M. and Stock, G.N. (2003). Building Dynamic Capabilities in New Product
Development through Intertemporal Integration. The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 20:136- 148.
Swink, M. and Song, M. (2007). Effects of marketing-manufacturing integration on new
product development time and competitive advantage. Journal of Operations
Management, 25:203-217.
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., and Wang, C. (2007). Managing Beyond the Factory Walls: Effects
of Four Types of Strategic Integration on Manufacturing Plant Performance.
Journal of Operations Management, 24:148-164.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic
Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7):509-533.
Teixeira, R., Koufteros, X.A. and Peng, X.D. (2012). Organizational Structure, Integration and
Manufacturing Performance: A Conceptual Model and propositions. Journal of
Operations and Supply Management, 5(1): 69-81.
Tesarolo, P. (2007). Is Integration Enough for Fast Product Development? An Empirical
Investigation of the Contextual Effects of Product Vision. The Journal of Product

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     40 | P a g e  
 
 
 

Organizational Structure, Function and Performance of Agribusiness Enterprises in Nigeria

Innovation Management, 24, 69-82.

The Guardian (1991). Focus on Local Sourcing of Industrial Raw Materials: Prospects and
Challenges of Looking Inwards. Author, October 5:7.
Thompson, V.A. (1965). Bureaucracy and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10:1-
20.
Value Fronteira (2012). Singapore’s Olam Buy’s Nigeria Biscuits Maker for $167
Million. Accessed on the 13th of August, 2012 from www.valuefronteira.com
Van de Ven, A.H. (1976). On the Nature, Formation and Maintenance of Relations among
Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 1:24-36.
Vickery, S.K., Jayaram, J., Droge, C., and Calantone, R. (2003). The Effects of an
Integrative Supply Chain Strategy on Customer Service and Financial Performance: An
Analysis of Direct Versus Indirect Relationships. Journal of Operations Management,
21:523-539.
Vonderembse, M.A., Ragunathan, T.S. and Rai, S.S. (1997). A Post-industrial Paradigm: To
Integrate and Automate Manufacturing. International Journal of Production
Research, 35(9):2579- 2599.
Walton, R.E. (1985). From Control to Commitment: Transforming Workforce Management
in the United States. In K. Clark, R. Hayes and C. Lorenz (Eds.). The Uneasy Alliance:
Management the Productivity-technology Dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Weber, M. (1974). The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, translated by A.M.
Henderson and Talcott M. Parsons. New York: The Free Press.
Watson, G. H. (1993). Strategic Benchmarking: How to Rate Your Company's Performance
against the World's Best, New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Wheelwright, S.C. and Bowen, H.K. (1996). The Challenge of Manufacturing Advantage.
Production and Operations Management, 5(1), 59-77.
Wiersema, M.F. and Bantel, K.A. (1992). Top Management Team Demography and
Corporate Strategic Change. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1):91-121.
Zairi, M. (1994). Practical Benchmarking: The Complete Guide. London: Chapman and Hall.
Zairi, M. (1997). Performance Excellence: A Practical Handbook. Dubai: e-TQM
College Publishing House.
Zaltman, G. and Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for Planned Change. New York: Wiley.
Zey-Ferrell, M. (1981). Criticisms of the Dominant Perspective on Organization. The
Sociological Quarterly, 22: 181-205.

scsrjournals@scholarconsult.com                                     41 | P a g e