CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Historically, organizational structure evolved from the ancient times of hunters to

industrial structures and today's post-industrial structures as pointed out by Jackson
and Morgan (1982).The post industrialization administrative history in the world has
been portrayed by a series of changes in emphasis involving three different objectives,
representativeness, professional, politically neutral bureaucracies and strong executive
leadership (Demsetz and Villalonga, 2011). In the early decades of the 20 th century
emphasis has been on centralization and control of big organizations which included
mostly public enterprises. The middle and later decades of the century saw the
antithesis of centralization which is decentralization as the best way to structure
organizations (Miller, 2007).

However, in the 21st century, organizational theorists such as Lim, Griffiths, and
Sambrook (2010) propose that organizational structure development is very much
dependent on the expression of the strategies and behaviour of the management and
the workers as constrained by the power distribution between them, and influenced by
their environment and the outcome.Organizational structure is strongly believed to
affect the behaviour of organizational incumbents and by extension influences
performance within the organization(Dalton, et al., 1980). This ideal suggest that
organizational structure tries to limit individual influences on the organization and
determines how responsibilities and power are allocated and provide platform for
decision making (Onodugo, Ugbam, Imo and Ogosi, 2013).

It is this same ideal that has led many product and service oriented firms in Nigeria to
effectively apply organizational structure within its organizational operations. In the
context of this study, service oriented companies work for others. They have clients
for whom the companies provide maintenance and support while product oriented
firms have their own products which are used by businesses and customers.
Meanwhile, Ann, Nwankwere, Orga and Igwe (2015) opine that service firms in

1
Nigeria put up structure within the organization in order to achieve its goals and
objectives by dividing among its employees task and responsibilities to be carried out.
In other words, some structure is necessary to make possible the effective
performance of key activities and to support the efforts of staff. Meanwhile, product
oriented firms like that of PZ Cussons Nigeria and Dangote Cement Plc are among the
known Nigerian firms that have seen the need of organizational structure as the means
of maintaining its competitive edge and sustainability. According to Sampson, Mirilla
and Emerole (2016), a successful organizational structure facilitates managerial
concerns, supply great potential for improving organization’s competitive power,
innovation capability and labour force relations while lowering expenses. Thus,
organization structure allows the allocation of responsibilities to different entities
within the organization. These entities could be described as branch, site, department,
workgroup, and single people (Sampson, Mirilla and Emerole, 2016). Therefore, it
cannot be succinctly stated that to a great extent organisational structure can make or
mar management effectiveness. Due to the static nature of organisational structure, it
sometimes cannot meet requirements of efficiency and adoptability.

It is however obvious that product and service oriented firms put up structures within
the hierarch and systems of the organization in order to have a successful
implementation of its objectives by allocating people and resources to necessary tasks
and design responsibility and authority for their control and coordination (Ezigbo,
2011).Additionally, Wolf (2002) believes that structure does not only shape the
competence of the organization, but it is also the processes that shape performance. In
his study, Clemmer (2013) also concludes that the performance of an organization is
influenced by the structure adopted by that organization.

Kamran (2017) argues that organizational structure has a significant part in

determining management effectiveness, and Hassan and Mojtaba, (2016) opine that
the practices of organizational structure are context specific. Therefore, in order to
achieve its goals and objectives the work of an organization has to be divided among
its members. Some structure is necessary to make possible the effective performance
of key activities and to support the efforts of staff. Hence, structure provides the

2
framework of an organization and for its pattern of management. It is by means of
structure that the purpose and work of the organization is carried out (Sampson,
Mirilla and Emerole, 2016). According to Atiqa and Imran (2014), when a company
persistently fulfill its organizational objectives the company gains competitive
advantage in the market share in a given industry. This has been of a record for
product and service oriented firms in Nigeria as many of them strive to gain market
competitiveness and sustainability through the restructuring programme of its firm
(Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook, 2010). The aim has always been for streamlining the
operations of the conglomerate, minimize costs and unlock global synergies that could
enhance performance and returns to shareholders. This is for product oriented firm
(Onodugo, Ugbam, Imo and Ogosi, 2013).

However, Terry (2013) posits that the essence of organizational structure is to create
framework that enables employees and management to take a company from the
surviving to thriving. This is what Felipe (2012) calls organizational sustainability.
He describes organizational sustainability as managing the triple bottom line - a
process by which companies manage their financial, social and environmental risks,
obligations and opportunities. In addition, Terry (2013) defines sustainability as the
reduction of organizational risk that increases the likelihood that an organization will
survive and thrive in the future, coupled with the mitigation of any harm to the things
and people around it.

In the process of offering of service or product firms build a form of standardization

around its services or products in order to maintain its market competitiveness.
According to Nelson and Quick (2011), standardization makes a firm to stand out
from its competitors. When a firm maintains its competitive edge in the market,
sustaining itself in the market becomes workout on its own. This Onodugo, et al.,
(2013) notes that organizational structure creates a form that propels a firm to
maintain its market leadership. Maintenance of this market leadership is what Kamran
(2017) implies to be sustainability of a firm. To achieve this, it will be determined by
the type of structure the management has laid in the firm.

3
Furthermore, departmentalization and centralization of the organization is done on the
basis of putting structures in place that will enable smooth running of the firm’s
operations. Producing efficiency and order in anorganization initiates the adoption of
centralization (Quangyen and Yezhuang, 2013). According to Mirjana and Dino
(2013), organizational structure is essential to the management team of any
organization because it provides tools and guidelines that could enable it achieve
efficiency and effectiveness in the organization. They further noted that elements of
organizationalstructure such as specialization of work, standardization,
departmentalization, centralization and decentralization are part of the tools in which
management maximize often to ensure effectiveness within the organization. Thus,
according to Hassan and Mojtaba (2016) organizational effectiveness and its relation
to structure can be determined by the fit between information processing requirements
that people can have neither too little nor too much inappropriate information.
However, good structure makes easy flows of important information that enable a
company perform much better that other companies.

Thus, organizational structure can inhibit or promote performance, depending on how

effectively the supervisory relationship and workflow influence productivity. A good
structure does not by itself produce expected performance. Hence, a structure of an
organization not only affects the employee performance but the overall performance
of the organization. Poor structure aid poor performance irrespective of the ability of
the manager (David, Renner and Young 2016). Therefore, this study aimed to
examine effects of organisational structure on employee performance: A case study of
First bank Plc, Enugu.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The role of management in any organization is to ensure organizational performance

through effective employee’s performance. This is mostly achieved through proper
structuring of the organization; this is alignment of every departmental units and
subunits to a specific role and functioning. The outcome of this produces proper
standardization and centralization of the firm, which propel its performance.

4
However, some corporate managers often do not critically align the structure of the
firm with its nature and scope. This affects the level of its corporate standardization,
departmentalization and centralization of the firm. In such situation there is chaos
within the organizational operation as employees give orders without due consultation
from the head and operations are being carried out without a clear backing from
overall organizational goals and objectives.

This non-alignment makes the mechanism for corporate effort and desired
organizational performance difficult to be actualized. In a state where no one is given
order in that chain of command creates a situation of ineffective leadership, conflict
role overlap. Employee’s morale is thus affected in such an organization leading to
high labour turnover which is unhealthy for the growth of the firm. This affects the
organizational ability to thrive in the industry. Therefore, to provide insights on how
proper organizational structure affects organisational performance, this study examine
effects of organisational structure on employee performance.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The broad objective of this study is to examine the effects of organisational structure
on employee performance. However, the specific objectives of the study are to:

i. Examine the effect of organizational standardization on First bank market

share.
ii. Ascertain the effect of departmentalization on effective decision making in
First bank Plc Enugu.
iii. Ascertain the effect of centralization on First bank goal attainment.

1.4 Research Questions

In line with the objectives of the study, the following research questions were put
forward:

i. To what extent does organizational standardization influence First bank market

share?

5
 ii. To what extent does departmentalization affects effective decision making in
First bank Plc Enugu?
iii. To what degree does centralization as a structure affect First bank goal
attainment?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

In line with the objectives and research questions, the following hypotheses were put
forward for test:

Hi : Organizational standardization has significant influence on First bank market

share.

Hi : Departmentalization has significant effect on effective decision making in First

bank Plc Enugu.

Hi : Centralization has significant effect on First bank goal attainment.

1.6 Significance of the Study

Organizational structure is a pivot which the other variables in an organization

revolve. However, an organization without well-defined structure will find it difficult
towards achieving its vision and objectives. Hence, this study will proffer solutions to
organizational managers, employees, academia and prospective researchers.

To managers, this study will provide findings and recommendations that will assist
them to structure the organization for effective management achievement. To the
employees, this study will provide insight on the necessity of cooperating with
organizational structure and how they could assist management team in achieving
effectiveness in their different organization.

To the academia, this research work serves as a lecturing and learning tool to
management students who will want to broaden their understanding on the
organizational structure as a tool for effective management. To prospective
researchers, this study will serve as a guideline towards developing a similar research
work like this.

6
1.7 Area Scope

This study was carried out in selected First Bank Plc branches in Enugu State. The
choice of the bank is based on the fact that their scope of operations and activities is in
alignment with the main objective of this study.

1.8 Limitation of Study

The limitations of the study were the by-product of the scope of the study. One of the
limitations of this study was that the results were limited to First Bank Plc Enugu.
Hence, the generlisability of the result is limited to First Bank Plc Enugu. The results
cannot be generalized to other service or other organisation.

Another limitation of the study was that the unwillingness of the respondents to give
out information to the researcher; people were unable to give out information needed
to carry out this study because they felt that their names may be made public or they
may be misquoted, but after much talk to convince them of the relevance of the
questionnaires, they yielded.

Insufficient time: The time allotted to this study is too short. It made the researchers to
run helter–skelter to beat the time. Despite these challenges, the researcher was able to
carry out the study based on the research tools available within her disposal. This
problem was tackled by efficient and effective time management strategy by the
researcher.

1.9 Brief profile of selected Banking Industries

First Bank of Nigeria

First Bank of Nigeria Limited (FirstBank) is Nigeria’s premier commercial bank and
most valuable banking brand. With over 10 million active customer accounts and
more than 750 business locations, First Bank of Nigeria Limited (“FirstBank”),
established in 1894, is the premier Bank in West Africa, Nigeria’s number one bank
brand and the leading financial services solutions provider in Nigeria. The Bank was
founded by Sir Alfred Jones, a shipping magnate from Liverpool, England. With its

7
head office originally in Liverpool, the Bank commenced business on a modest scale
in Lagos, Nigeria under the name, Bank of British West Africa (BBWA).

In 1912, the Bank acquired its first competitor, the Bank of Nigeria (previously called
Anglo-African Bank) which was established in 1899 by the Royal Niger Company. In
1957, the Bank changed its name from Bank of British West Africa (BBWA) to Bank
of West Africa (BWA). In 1966, following its merger with Standard Bank, UK, the
Bank adopted the name Standard Bank of West Africa Limited and in 1969 it was
incorporated locally as the Standard Bank of Nigeria Limited in line with the
Companies Decree of 1968.

Changes in the name of the Bank also occurred in 1979 and 1991 to First Bank of
Nigeria Limited and First Bank of Nigeria Plc, respectively. In 2012, the Bank
changed its name again to First Bank of Nigeria Limited as part of a restructuring
resulting in FBN Holdings Plc (“FBN Holdings”), having detached its commercial
business from other businesses in the FirstBank Group, in compliance with new
regulation by the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). FirstBank had 1.3 million
shareholders globally, was quoted on The Nigerian Stock Exchange (NSE), where it
was one of the most capitalised companies and also had an unlisted Global Depository
Receipt (GDR) programme, all of which were transferred to its Holding Company,
FBN Holdings, in December 2012.

Leveraging experience spanning over a century of dependable services, FirstBank has

continued to build relationships and alliances with key sectors of the economy that
have served as strategic building blocks for the wellbeing, growth and development of
the country. With its huge asset base and expansive branch network, as well as
continuous re-invention, FirstBank is Nigeria’s strongest banking franchise,
maintaining market leadership on all fronts in the nation’s financial services industry.

8
1.10 Operational Definition of Terms

The following are the main operational definition of terms in this study:

Centralization: This refers to the process by which the decisions within an

organization are determined by a selected group of individuals. In many situations,
managers at the top level of a business hold all of the decision-making power.

Decentralization: This is the process of redistributing or dispersing functions,

powers, people or things away from a central location or authority.

Delegation: This is the process by which an individual manager or supervisor

transfers part of his authority or power of act to a subordinate to do a particular work
but, without relinquishing the ultimate responsibility entrusted to him by his own
superior.

Market leadership: Market leadership is the position of a company with the largest
market share or highest profitability margin in a given market for goods and services.

Organizational Structure: The division of labour as well as the pattern of

coordination, communication, workflow and formal power that direct organizational
activities.

Performance: The way a job or task is done by an individual, a group or an

organization.

9
 REFERENCES

Atiqa, A. & Imran, H. N. (2014). The impact of institutional structure on organizational

effectiveness: Considering organizational justice as a mediator. Behaviour Journal,
7(2), 25-54

Child, J. (2015). Organizational Structure, Environment And Performance: The Role of

Strategic ChoiceSociology, 6(1), 34-67

CIPD (2012). Responsible and sustainable business: Human resource leading the way – A
collection of “thought pieces. London: CIPD.

Clemmer, J. (2013). Organization structure limits or liberates high performance.

Colbert, B. &Kurucz, E. (2017). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business

sustainability and the role for human resource management, Human Resource
Planning 30

Cyert, R. M & March, J (1963). Behavioural theory of the firm. 2nd Ed, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice Hall

Daft, R.L. (2009). Organization theory and design.6th Ed, Cincinnati, Ohio: South Western
College Publishing

Demsetz, R & Villalonga, Z. (2011). Evaluation of a perceived organizational performance

scale using rasch model analysis.Australian Journal of Management, 12 (1), 507-
522

Ezigbo, C., (2011). Advanced management theory and applications, Immaculate Publications
Ltd, Enugu.

Hamann, P.N. (2013). Exploring the dimensions of organizational performance: A Construct

Validity Study Organizational Research Methods 1(16), 67-87

Hassan, H. & Mojtaba, T. (2016). The relationship between structure and performance
organizational from emergency staff viewpoints. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery
Sciences, 3(2), 40-46.

Jackson, J. H., and C. P. Morgan, (1982). OrganizationTheory, Prentice-Hall.

Kamran, G. E. (2017). On the impact of organizational structure on organizational efficiency

in industrial units: Industrial units of Kerman and Hormozgan Provinces.Macapá,
7(3),95-105.

Miller, D. (2007). Strategy making and structure: analysis and implications for performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 7-32.

Nkiruka, I. &Ogundeinde. A. (2016). Survival strategies and sustainability of small and

medium enterprises in the Oshodi-IsoloLocal Government Area of Lagos State. Act
a Univ. Sapientiae, Economics and Business, 4 (16). 103–118.

10
Ogbo, A.I, Nwankwere, F. C., Orga, C. C. & Igwe, A. A. (2015). Impact of structure on
organizational performance of selected technical and service firms in Nigeria.
Corporate Ownership & Control / 13(1): 12 – 24

Sampson, C.J., Mirilla, A.T. & Emerole, G.A. (2016). Evaluation of organizational structure
on management effectiveness: A study of Dangote Cement Plc Gboko Plant, Benue
State. Singaporean Journal of Business Economics, and Management Studies
(SJBEM), 5(4), 20-36

Terry, W. (2013). Organizational sustainability: What is it, and why does it matter?Review of
Enterprise and Management Studies, 1(1), 34-47

Quangyen, T. &Yezhuang, T. (2013). Organizational Structure: Influencing Factors and

Impact on a Firm. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management,3(10)
229-236

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. translated by A. M.

Henderson and Talcott parsons. New York: Oxford University Press

Wolf, D., (2002). Execution and structure. Internet: http://www.dewarsloan.com

11
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Conceptual Framework

2.1.1 Concept of Organizational Structure

There are many different opinions and definitions on organizational structure. First of
all, structure in one sense is the arrangement of duties used for the work to be done.
This is best represented by the organization chart (Jackson and Morgan, 2009). In
another sense, “structure is the architecture of business competence, leadership, talent,
functional relationships and arrangement” (Wolf 2012). Walton (2009) identified
structure as the basis for organizing, to include hierarchical levels and spans of
responsibility, roles and positions, and mechanisms for integration and problem
solving.

Then, organizational structure is the construction or shape that determines the internal
structure of the relationships prevailing in the organization. It illustrates the divisions
or units of the main and branch undertaken various actions and activities required to
achieve the objectives of the organization (Hammoud, 2012). It includes the size of
the organization and style of power and decision-making style, so that the nature of
the organizational structure and personnel in the organization look to affect their
ability to participate and creativity (Qaryouti, 2009). Bloisi, Cook and Hunsaker
(2007) define organizational structure as a grouping of people and tasks into different
units to boost coordination of communication, decisions, and actions. Realizing the
close connection between the processes taking place inside an organization makes it is
easier to understand the intricate task of directing an efficient organization.

Louadi (2008), conceptualize organizational structure as facilitating interactions and

communication for coordinating and control of the organization’s activities. It is
implemented in terms of specialization, formalization and centralization.
Specialization refers to the number of occupational specialties and the length of
training required by each (Hage, 2015) or the degree to which highly specialized

12
requirements are spelled out in formal job descriptions for various functions
(Reimann, 2014). Formalization refers to the rules, procedures and written
documentation such as policy manuals and job descriptions that prescribe the rights
and duties of employees (Walsh and Dewar, 2007). Centralization refers to the levels
of hierarchy with authority to make decisions (Thompson, 2015).

Germain (2016), conceptualize organizational structure as the way responsibility and

power are allocated inside the organization and work procedures are carried out by
organizational members. Thompson (2015) definesorganizational structure as the
organization’s internal pattern of relationships, authority, and communication.
Similarly, Gene, Lin-Yhi, and Lih (2015) define organizational structure as “the
network of relationships and roles existing throughout the organization”.

Warren and Dennis (2015) defined organizational structure as the prescribed pattern
of work related behaviour that is deliberately established for the accomplishment of
organizational goals. March and Simon (2008) defines organizational structure as how
job tasks are formally divided and coordinated. It is the hierarchical relations among
members of the organization.

Organizational structure is also conceptualized as the procedure through which an

enterprise is managed. It could also be defined as the framework within which
management operates. Therefore, an organization structure refers to the arrangements
of task, interrelations of various departments and levels of authorities to achieve co-
operation of effort, delegation of authority, and effective communication along the
scalar chain (Manar, 2014).

Daft (2008), conceptualize organizationstructure as a social institution that is based on

how the target is consciously planned and coordinated with the active system that is
associated with the external environment. Organizations is consist Individuals with
together relationship and organizational structure assist organizations in the field of
optimum use of its resources to achieve organization’s goals and strategies (Araghi,
2008). Peter Drucker believes that organizational structure is a method for achieving
long-term and short-term goals in an organization (Robbins, 2010). Robbins (2009)

13
defines Organizational structure as one of organization components that is composed
element of complexity, Formalization, and centralization.

The organizational structure also represents relationship between factors of

production, and the relations within these factors. This is the most important part of
any organization (Olajide, 2015). These relations are established to carry out specific
tasks. Also represent organizational resources schedule. Significant place in the
organizational theory holds exploration of organizational structures for the simple
reason that the structure is very important in every organization. Sikavica (2009)
states that the organizational structure involves the totality of connections and
relationships between all the factors of production, as well as the totality of
connections and relationships within each factor of production or operations.

2.1.2 Components / Types of Organizational Structure

In the 21st century, Achrol (2009) foretold an unstable marketing environment filled
with new information such that the classic, vertical organization of the 20 th century
could no longer endure. All indications pointed to the emergence of a new type of
organization; a network within which specialized firms operated in an exchange
relationship. Next, specific types of organizational structures will be discussed, e.g.,
the simple structure, functional structure, multi-divisional structure, matrix structure,
hybrid structure, and network structure. Also, the virtual organization is introduced as
a relatively new concept in organizational design.

2.1.2.1 Simple Structure

This type of organizational design may form as soon as at least two people make up an
organization. The simple structure occurs usually in very small, flexible, and dynamic
organizationsthat have little differences among tasks. According to Mintzberg (2009),
the simple structure results when the strategic apex, or upper-level management,
forms centralized control. The members involved in a simple structure share an
informal relationship in which task allocation is decided based on common agreement.
Often, organizations operating as a simple structure may appear to have no structure at
all. The simple structure frequently occurs in a newly developed organization or an

14
organization that is permanently small. However, large corporations may also make
use of the simple structure within specific units, or departments, of the company
(Hatch, 2009).

2.1.2.2 Functional Structure

The functional structure partitions the organization based on a logical grouping of

members that share common tasks or goals. In an organization that manufactures a
product, some of the common functional units may be production, sales, accounting,
marketing, and public relations. The idea behind the functional structure is to boost
profits by specializing tasks and grouping them together for maximum productivity.
The members of a functional organization can easily see the relationship between all
individuals in one department. In the functional organization, the CEO, or top
manager, has control over the organization and is the only organizational member who
sees the whole picture of all departments working towards a common goal. This can
be a disadvantage to the organization if the top manager suddenly leaves the position,
leaving no other qualified individuals to effectively run the organization. Also, the top
manager may easily become overwhelmed by increased decision-making as the
organization grows (Hatch, 2009).

2.1.2.3 Multi-Divisional Structure

Hatch (2009) claimed that when the functional structure becomes too large for one
centralized decision-maker, the organization typically takes on a multi-divisional
structure. In the multidivisional structure, or M-form, the organization is divided into
functional structures that all report to a staff at corporate headquarters. Within each
functional structure, members are grouped according to production processes or
products, customer type, or geographical region where their activity takes place. The
functional structures are each responsible for making daily decisions regarding
production schedules and sales while the headquarters staff monitors overall company
performance and formulates strategy.

15
2.1.2.4 Matrix Structure

The matrix structure exists as a combination of the functional and multi-divisional

structures. The matrix organization employs both functional managers and project
managers. The responsibilities of the functional managers include assigning specialists
to projects and ensuring them the acquisition and maintenance of necessary skills to
complete the project. These managers also monitor the progress of the task and make
sure it meets company standards. The project managers, then, supervise each project
in terms of budgeting and timeline (Hatch, 2009).

The organization members involved in a matrix structure are allocated to project

teams based on agreement between the functional and project managers. The teams
include members that possess the functionally specialized abilities to finish up the task
at hand. The team members report to both the functional manager and the project
manager; therefore, a disadvantage of the matrix structure lies with the conflict often
created by dual lines of authority. The simple, functional, multi-divisional, and matrix
forms of organizations represent pure types of organizational structure. Sometimes, an
organization will not fit neatly into one of these categories, but would rather utilize
some combination of two or more structures. Hybrid structures may exist deliberately
in order to gain the maximum advantage of certain structures, or the organization may
be changing and temporarily incorporate more than one structural type. Confusion
often occurs in a hybrid organization because relationships change accordingly
between parts of the organization. However, the hybrid structure can be beneficial in
that it provides the organization with the ability to embrace the structure that best fits
its needs (Hatch, 2009).

2.1.2.5 Network Structure

The network structure is a relatively new organizational type that replaces most
vertical relationships with horizontal ones. Instead of the organization operating from
formal vertical relationships, a partnership is formed among several organizations.
The entire network, then, produces goods or provides services, so that one single
organization does not provide a product or service. This coordination of activities

16
eradicates the need for the traditional vertical hierarchy, which lowers administrative
costs. While lessening overall costs, networks also increase efficiency and profitability
that enable the organization to remain competitive (Hatch, 2009). Networks often
form when organizations find themselves faced with technological change, short
product lifecycles, or highly specialized markets.

2.1.2.6 Virtual Organizational Structure

A virtual organization exists when all the task activities of the company are
outsourced (Hatch, 2009). The virtual organization is typified by the virtual product,
or a product that is instantly produced according to the specific desires of the
customer. The characteristics of the virtual organization include work teams, flexible
manufacturing, individual worker autonomy, and computer design and customization
(Davidow& Malone, 2012). Rahman and Bhattachryya (2012) discussed the
emergence of the virtual organization as a specific type of networked organization.
There are two definitions that may represent the virtual organization. An organization
may be virtual in that it is a temporary network of generally independent entities that
are linked through technology to provide skills, costs, and accessibility to different
markets.

An organization may also be virtual in that it simply does not have a physical building
from which it operates. In this context, that definition might imply that the
organization is geographically distributed and therefore operates through electronic
communication devices. Virtual organizations have five common characteristics as
identified by Rahman and Bhattachryya (2012). First, virtual organizations have a
shared vision and goal, and sometimes the organizations also have a universal
protocol of cooperation. Second, the organizations group activities around certain core
capabilities. Virtual organizations also operate in core competence teams in order to
implement their tasks in a unifying approach throughout the entire network. In
addition, these organizations both process and disseminate information in real time,
allowing them to quickly make decisions and formulate actions. Finally, virtual
organizations often delegate tasks and responsibilities from the bottom up when new

17
conditions are introduced or a certain capability is required for the group goal to be
accomplished.

2.1.3 Employee Performance

Employee Performance in a firm is a very important area in the workplace. It can help
the firm increase and utilize the capacity of the human resources it has. It translates
into good service delivery and interaction in which affects every area of the
organization. To achieve this organization need to make polices that will encourage
employee performance. An employee’s job performance depends on or is a
consequence of some combination of ability, effort, and opportunity. But, the
measurements can be done in terms of outcomes or results produced (Ferris et al.,
2009). Performance is defined as the record of outcomes produced on a specified job
function or activity during a specified time period (Bernadrdin & Russel, 2009).
According to this definition performance is set of outcomes produced during a certain
time period. Hence the researchers have developed the working definition of
employee performance for study purpose is that, “achievement of targets of the tasks
assigned to employees within particular period of time”. Performance is not only
related to the action but also involves judgment and evaluation process (Ilgen and
Schneider, 2011).

According to Campbell (2013) performance is related to that which the individual that
is hired do in fulfilling his / her duties and the activities that can be examined and
measurable are reflected. An organization needs high performance of its employees,
so as to meet its goal and be able to achieve competitive advantage (Frese, 2012).
According to business dictionary employee performance is the job related activities
expected of a worker and how well those activities were executed. The organization
success depends on the employee performance. Therefore, it is important for a
manager to create a well –rounded approach to managing and coaching its workforce.
The commercial banks are service industry and their main aim is to satisfy their
customer. The service employee renders to the customer and employee performance is
interrelated. When employees provide excellent customer service, they are exceeding
job expectations. The popularity of an organization’s service is based in part on the
18
level of service received by the customer. For service industry the business is based
almost solely on their employee’s performance. That is why management must look
for various ways in improving employee performance.

2.1.4 Market share

Market share is referred to as the useful means for addressing potential aspects of
consumer needs and better sales volume (Rex and Baumann, 2007; Chen, 2008).
Regan (2002) defines market share as a company’s sales of total industry sales for a
specified period. Pearce and Robinson (2003) also use the same definition that market
share is sales relative to those of other competitors in the market. Market share is
usually used to express a competitive position. It is also usually accepted that
increased market share can be equated with success whereas decrease in market share
is a manifestation of unfavorable actions by firms and usually equated with failure
(Lydon, Paymaster and Mesh, 2016). The positive impacts of green innovation on
corporate competitive advantages and market share enhancement have been widely
confirmed (Chen, 2006; Iwu, 2010; Chiou, 2011). In support, Rubik et al. (2005) point
out the main motivation for firms to conduct green innovation is to promote more
transactions.
Investors and analysts monitor increases and decreases in market share carefully,
because this can be a sign of the relative competitiveness of the company's products or
services. As the total market for a product or service grows, a company that is
maintaining its market share is growing revenue at the same rate as the total market. A
company that is growing its market share will be growing its revenues faster than its
competitors.
Market share increases can allow a company to achieve greater scale with its
operations and improve profitability. A company can try to expand its share of the
market, either by lowering prices, using advertising or introducing new or different
products. In addition, it can also grow the size of its market size by appealing to other
audiences or demographics.

19
2.1.5 Goal Attainment

Goal attainment is the process through which human and other resources are
mobilized for the attainment of collective goals and purpose. In a social system, the
goal attainment functions are met through political activities and mobilization occurs
through the generation and exercise of power (Jung-Yu, Hsin-Jung and Chun-Chieh,
2010). This is why employees often invest greater effort in job performance in order
to attain goals assigned to them within the framework of their job responsibilities. By
performing jobs and tasks well, employees are expressing that such are important to
them.

Conceivably, performing jobs and tasks well not only helps employees attain
achievement, but also affects their lives and the work of others. Using the importance
perspective, Brief and Aldag (2016) found task significance (similar to importance) to
affect work satisfaction positively. Similarly, Parker et al. (2013) found a positive
association between the psychological importance of a job and job satisfaction. Thus,
employees whose jobs and tasks have higher importance values will show greater
satisfaction with such (Mobley and Locke, 2010). However, employees realize goal
attainment by investing greater effort in a work task. The more effort expended, the
more job involvement an employee gains. Job involvement reflects the worth of a
work task to an individual (Lodahl and Kejner, 2015).

2.1.6 Organizational Performance

Performance is the end result of activities; it includes the actual outcomes of the
strategic management process (Al-Hasan and James, 2013). Bhagwatti (2004) posits
that the organizational performance is represented by the success in achieving its
goals. Organizational performance constitutes all behaviors related to organizational
objectives depending on the contribution levels of individuals to the organization
(Delery and Doty, 2016). However, the organizational performance is the mirror that
reflects the organization’s ability in achieving high productivity provided it is
combined with the customers satisfaction and having a well market share that can

20
provide a suitable financial refund and do social and ethic responsibilities towards the
environment where the organization works and the society (Gantasala, 2011).

Similarly, scholars considered organizational performance as the achieved results of

the interaction between the activities of communication and information technology
sector and its resources or the difference between the financial goals and the non-
financial ones in a specific period of time (Rajneesh and Kaur, 2014). Furthermore,
Venkatraman and Vasudevan (2009) note that measurement for the organizational
performance relies on the fields of performance in the business organizations vary and
differ according to their different businesses , nature of activities and the degree of
focus on the fields that is believed to achieve goals are considered a priority for the
organization (Giovanni, 2012). Although scholars have different attitudes towards
identifying fields of performance and ways of measuring them, hence some of them
pay attention to the shareholders‟ goals as major fields of performance that the
organization should rely on measuring the performance.

Darroch (2015) conclude that the financial performance will remain the field that
determines the extent of the organization’s success and its inability to achieve the
basic level of the financial performance. However, its existence will be in danger, only
if the performance includes non financial scales, the background image of the
performance will show up the thing which the financial indications fail to do (Zainol
and Ayadurai, 2011). In consistent with this, Sink and Tuttle (2009) realize that
performance should not be treated only as a financial concept. Thus, it is suggested
that particularly in the service sector, such as university institution non-financial
performance should receive serious consideration.

However, Nofal, Hollenbeck, Gerhart and Wright (2014) argue that relying only on
the financial ratios in evaluating the performance gives incomplete image about the
organization. Therefore, this method in evaluation should be enhanced and supported
by operational performance’s scales to build measurement system for effective
performance in the organization such as market share, customer retain. To this end,
Noruzy, Lau-Chung and Foley (2013) argued that if the manger cares of the total

21
performance of the organization, he will be able to create a balance between the
operational and the financial interests.

Traditionally, firm performance has been viewed and measured in accounting terms.
An additional issue should be raised here; due to confidentiality concerns, it is often
challenging to obtain actual accounting data from organizations unless they are
publicly quoted companies (Coulter and Robbins, 2016). Although organizational
performance encompasses many specific areas of firm outcomes (i.e. dimensions)
(Richard and Johnson, 2009; Thang, Tessema, and Soeters, 2008; Morgan and Strong,
2003; Nwokah, 2008), we focused only on three key dimensions to measure
organizational performance which growth, competitive advantage and level of its
innovations.

Furthermore, Richard (2009) defines organizational performance can be measured

through three basic outcomes which are financial performance, product market
performance and return to the shareholders. As Schneider, Hanges, Smith, and
Salvaggio (2013) had found that micro-orientation on way to job attitude and
performance relationship is somewhat puzzling, the interest of the employee attitudes
had much of its motivation in the 1960s when organizational scientists such as Argyris
(1964), Likert (1961), and McGregor (1960) purposed that the organizational
performance is a result of the employee experience and commitment. Integrity has
been explained as the best of the human state, the better the humans are committed to
their tasks will lead to their better performance that results in batter results (Comte-
Sponville, 2011; Weiner, 2013).

2.2 Theoretical Framework

Theories are formulated to explain, predict and help in understanding phenomenon

and in many cases to challenge and extend existing knowledge within the limits of the
critical bounding assumptions, (David, 2009). Different authors have come up with
theories on organizational structure. Thus, in the course of this research, the researcher
reviews an underpinning theory of organizational structure. This study adopted the

22
Resource-Based View (RBV) and Contingent theory as the theoretical background of
this study.

2.2.1 Resource-Based View (RBV) of the Firm

The Resource-Based Theory was developed by Penrose in 1959 to help understand

how organizations achieve sustainable competitive advantage using resources that
they already possess. However, this view sees a firm as a unique bundle of
idiosyncratic resources and capabilities where the primary task of management is to
maximize value through the optimal deployment of existing resources and
capabilities, while developing the firm’s resource base for the future (Grant, 1996). It
is based on a firm using its internal strengths to take advantage of opportunities to
counter threats in the market, with an aim to creating sustainable competitive
advantage through acquisition, utilization, and exploitation of firm-specific resources
and capabilities (April 2002; Riahi-Belkaoui 2003).

This theory relates to the study as it brings out the view the need why firms put up
structures within the organization. The aim is for the firm to well-utilized the
resources of the organization as this gives the organization competitive advantage.
This competitive advantage also becomes what gives a firm sustainability in the
market. Meanwhile, it is worthy to note that the resource-based theory treats firms as
potential creators of value-added capabilities, and the underlying organizational
competence involves viewing the assets and resources of the firm from a knowledge-
based perspective (Conner, 1991). Organizational structure becomes necessary for
organization to be able to maximize its potential and capabilities, as this often ensures
sustainability.

2.2.2 Contingent theory

The Contingent theory began with the work of Burns and Stalker in 1961 as cited by
Achcaoucaou, Bernardo and Castan (2009). The theory states that the appropriateness
of an organizational structure depends on environmental conditions. Thus,
organizational structure is mainly dependent on the internal and external environment
that arises in the organization. Aligned with this, firms which match their internal

23
characteristics to environmental requirements perform better (Achcaoucaou, Bernardo
and Castan, 2009).The contingent theory of organizational structure provides a major
framework for the study of organizational design. It holds that the most effective
organizational structural design is where the structure fits the contingencies
(Donaldson, 2001).

The implication of this theory is that firm sustainability is an attributes of management

ability to structure the organization in the manner in which it can be able to meet up
with the environmental conditions. Part of the business environment of any firm
comprises both the internal and external business environment (Litavniece and
Znotina 2015). The theory brings to light that with proper structure a firm will be able
perform better within any environment and this will contributes to the sustainability of
that firm.

2.3 Empirical Review

Mbah, Ekechukwu and Odinachi (2015) investigated the effects of organizational

structure on the performance of manufacturing firms in south east Nigeria. The
specific objectives of the study were to; ascertain effect of the staff training on the
product quality service of the manufacturing firms in south east, Nigeria and examine
the effect of employee adaptation and flexibility on sales turnover of the
manufacturing firms in south east, Nigeria. The findings revealed that staff training
has positive effects on the product quality service of the organization and employment
adaptation and flexibility has positive effect on sales turnover of the organization. The
study concludes that organization performance depends on the nature of
organizational structure hence the management that focuses on the competencies of
staff by training will have positive effects on sales turnover of the organization.

Linda (2012) in her work: “The Impact of Organizational Structure in Effective

Management of Nigerian Organization: A Study of Nigerian Brewery Plc, Enugu”
adopted the descriptive survey design and made used of both the primary, and
secondary sources of data in the course of her study. The study adopted a descriptive
research design using 120 randomly staff of Nigerian Brewery Plc, Enugu. Data

24
collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics while formulated hypotheses were
tested using z-test. The result of the findings revealed among others that
organizational structure has a great impact in the effective management of
organizations. The study concludes that organizations that are well-structured perform
effectively.

Hamdan and Mohammed (2013), in their work: “Impact of Organizational Structure

on Knowledge Management in the Jordanian Insurance Companies: From the
Perspective of the Supervisory Leadership”. The study sample consisted (162)
individual occupants of leadership and supervisory functions in (24) insurance
companies operating in Jordan, where the questionnaire was developed to gauge the
views of the occupants of these jobs consisting of (27) paragraphs. After a process of
data analysis and hypothesis testing using SPSS package, their study found the
possibility of relying on the organizational structure in strengthening the application
of knowledge management. The study concludes that appropriate organizational
structure ensures organizational survival and success.

Esra and Ozgur (2014) in their work: “Structural Determinants of Organizational

Effectiveness” stated that increasing organizational effectiveness is one of the most
important organizational goals for almost all organizations in every industry. Their
study reviews the function of organizational structure for increasing organizational
effectiveness especially by focusing on software organizations. The structural
variables considered in their research are formalization, specialization, centralization,
organizational age and size. The survey prepared according to their research model
was responded by 120 software firms. The collected data were analyzed using
statistical test techniques. Their findings show that formalization and specialization
increase organizational effectiveness. On the other hand, increasing the organizational
size decreases the organizational effectiveness. Their results indicated that software
companies should stay at small scales in their organizational size while increasing
their organizational performances with the help of specialization and formalization.
The study concludes that organizational structure impacts on firm’s effectiveness.

25
Sampson, Mirilla and Emerole (2016) carried out a study on the evaluation of
organizational structure on management effectiveness with reference to Dangote
Cement PLC in Gboko, Benue State. The research adopted survey research design, the
population consist of management personnel of the organization, which was one
hundred and fifty one (151). Descriptive statistic, Pearson Product Moment
Correlation, and Logistic Regression Analysis was used to analyze the objectives. The
major findings revealed that; line and staff organizational structure and
product/market organizational Structure are organizational structure adopted in the
organization, the correlation analysis result indicated that at P>0.05 level of
significance, organizational structure has a strong positive effect on managerial
effectiveness with correlation coefficient of (r = 0.811). The Logistic Regression
result revealed that; Centralization (sig≤0.05; w = 2.764), Formalization (sig≤0.01; w
= 11.609), and effective Organization Communication (sig≤0.01; w = 5.342), are
structural variables that are significantly related with the effectiveness of managers in
Dangote Cement PLC, Gboko Plant. The researcher concluded that effective
organizational structure is sine qua non to management effectiveness and
organizational performance.

Masoud and Narges (2013) examined the relationship between organizational

structure and organizational effectiveness at Rafsanjan public departments. The
statically community of this research included all 60 managers of Rafsanjan public
departments .sampling didn’t perform for the reason of limitation in statistical
community. In order to describe and analyze the collected data via questionnaires’,
used different amplitude distribution tables, mean and middle scattering chart,
Spearman and Pierson’s correlation T and F tests that all statistical analysis performed
by computer and SPSS software. The analyzing of the data shows that: There is a
relation between organizational structure and effectiveness and also between
formalization and organizational effectiveness.

Manar (2014) examined the impact of organizational structure on organizational

commitment in public and private sectors firms in Jordan. Three main structural
dimensions are included in this research: formalization, centralization (in the form of

26
hierarchy of authority and participation), and standardization. 412 surveys were
administrated to 23 public and private firms in Amman and a sample of 239 valid
questionnaires were obtained. Regression analysis and Pearson product moment
correlation coefficient were employed in testing our hypotheses Results reveal that all
structure dimensions are related to organizational commitment in both sectors, except
the hierarchy of authority. Among the structure dimensions, formalization exhibits the
largest correlation with organizational commitment in public firms, whereas
participation has the largest correlation with organizational commitment in private
firms. Employee demographic has no impact on either structure dimensions or
organizational commitment in either private or public sector. Furthermore, position in
either private or public sector does not moderate the relationship between
organizational structure and organizational commitment.

Maduenyi, Oke, and Ajagbe (2015) examined the impact of organizational structure
on organizational performance. The study used mainly the secondary sources of data
collection. The secondary data was sourced through journals, articles, internets and
texts books. Multiple regression models were used to analyze the data. The findings
revealed that organizational structure has an impact on organizational performance.
The study concludes that organizationswith definite structure perform better.

Kamran (2017) investigated the relationship between organizational structure and

efficiency among employed personnel in industrial units of Ker-man and Hormozgan
provinces. The study distributed questionnaire to sample size of 384 of Personnel
employed in industrial units of Kerman and Hormozgan provinces. The data were
analyzed with Excel and SPSS15. The findings showed that there is significant
relationship between efficiency in industrial units with organizational structure and its
components including complexity, formality and concentration.

Ntandoyenkosi (2014) examined the relationship between organizational structure and

performance of the National Railways of Zimbabwe. Organizational structure was
denoted by its structural variables and dimensions of centralization, size,
formalization, functional specialization, span of control and chain of command as
independent variables. On the other hand performance as a dependent variable was
27
designated by efficiency, effectiveness and adaptiveness. Data was collected using a
questionnaire from ninety employees. Secondary data was also collected from
company documents. The data was analyzed with simple linear regression. The
findings established that size, chain of command, functional specialization, span of
control affected performance.

Ogbo, Nwankwere, Orga and Igwe (2015) examined the impact of structure on
organizational performance of selected technical and service firms in Nigeria. The
data was analyzed with the Simple percentage (%), chi-square (*a) and correlation
were used in analysis of the data and in testing the three hypotheses. Findings revealed
that decentralization enhanced better and more informed decision making in technical
and service firms in Nigeria; that task routine affected staff productivity both
positively and negatively; and that a significant positive relationship existed between
narrow span of control and efficiency in organizations.

Hassan and Mojtaba (2016) investigated on the relationship between organizational

structure and organizational performance from the perspective of the staff of 115
emergency departments of Mazandaran province, Iran. The study selected 207
emergency personnel were as the sample size for the study. Data analysis was
performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Spearman’s correlation-coefficient,
and Friedman’s rank test. The results according to the results of Spearman’s
correlation-coefficient, the correlation-coefficient between organizational structure
and organizational performance were 0.793. Moreover, the correlation-coefficients of
the complexity and centralization dimensions of organizational performance were
0.979 and 0.493, respectively. Correlation-coefficient of the formalization dimension
of organizational performance was obtained at 0.287. The study concludes that all the
dimensions of organizational structure (formalization, complexity, and centralization)
had significant, positive correlations with organizational performance.

Malik (2016) investigated on the effect of organizational structure on employee’s

performance in brewing firms in Nigeria. The population of the study is 6468 being
the total staff strength of the five brewing firms in Nigeria Stock Exchange while the
sample size was extracted from the population using Taro Yamane method to arrive
28
on the sample size of 376. This study used descriptive type of survey design and
structured questionnaire was used to generate data. Descriptive statistics, correlation
and t-statistics, was adopted for analysis of data and hypotheses testing. The result of
the study revealed that nature of hierarchical layers has significant positive effect on
the employee’s performance of brewing firms; that technology has significant positive
effect on the employee’s performance of brewing firms; that internal and external
boundaries has significant positive effect on the employee’s performance of brewing
firms; and that formalization significantly affect employee’s performance positively.
In view of the above findings, the study concludes that adopting appropriate structure
is the fulcrum on which employees’ performance of brewing firms revolves.

Nwonu, Agbaeze and Obi-Anike (2017) examined the effect of organizational

structure on the performance of selected manufacturing companies in Enugu State,
Nigeria with a focus on pharmaceutical manufacturing firms. The study adopted a
Survey design. Three organizations were studied namely: A.C. Drugs Ltd, NEMEL
Pharmaceutical Limited and Juhel Pharmaceutical Company Ltd with a population of
four hundred and sixty-eight (468). The sample size was determined using Cochram
(1963) formula which gave a sample size of 297. The study relied on both primary and
secondary data. Materials and information were sourced from the Human Resource
Departments of the firms and journal articles including textbooks and students project
reports. The methods used in analyzing the data are descriptive statistics (frequencies,
mean, standard deviation, variance, etc.), simple linear regression and correlation
(bivariate) to examine the effect of organizational structure (Independent Variable) on
organizational performance (dependent variables). The study found that structure
significantly affects organizational performance. The study concludes that
organizational structure in pharmaceutical manufacturing firms affects performance
except in its growth objective.

2.4 Research Gap

Specific gaps were identified after reviewing the literature. This project topic is at an
infant stage in Nigerian banking industry, specifically concerning organisational
structure. Most works done under this concept were done abroad, and few in various
29
states in Nigeria and none focused its attention on the area of sustainability of product
oriented firms. Works in this area of study is still quite in its infancy, this could be due
to the paucity of information within the geographical area and this study contributed
to bridging the gap in the literature by proxies of independent and dependent
variables. Some of the studies did not give details of the area were the study was
carried out. This study filled the gap in the literature by making use of primary data
drawn from selected First Bank branches in Enugu state, Nigeria.

30
 REFERENCES

Andrews, P. (2011). Job Satisfaction and organizational structure: A comparative study of

Nine Social Service Departments. Journal of Organizational, 22 (3):347-366.

Ogbo, A.I., Nwankwere, F. C., Orga, C. C. & Igwe, A. A. (2015). Impact of structure on
organizational performance of selected technical and service firms in Nigeria.
Corporate Ownership & Control, 13(1), 1278 – 1284

Atiqa, A. & Imran, H. N. (2014). The impact of institutional structure on organizational

effectiveness: considering organizational justice as a mediator. Behaviour Journal,
7(2), 25-54

Bloisi, W., Cook, C.W. &Hunsaker, P.L. (2007). Management and organizational behaviour.
2nd edition. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill

Bulent, A. & Adnan C. (2015). The role of organizational culture on effectiveness. E + M

Ekonomie A Management, Vol. 3(9): 25 -38

Child, J. (2015). Organizational Structure, environment and performance: The role of

strategic choice.Sociology, 6(1), 34-67

CIPD (2012). Responsible and sustainable business: Human resourceleading the way – A
collection of “thought pieces”. London: CIPD.

Colbert, B. &Kurucz, E. (2017). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business

sustainability and the role for human resource management, Human Resource
Planning, 30

Cyert, R. M & March, J (1963). Behavioural theory of the firm. 2nd Ed, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice Hall

Daft, R. (2008). Organization theory andDesign. (5th ed.), New York, West Publishing
Company

Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (2012). The virtual corporation. New York, NY: Harper
Collins.

Demsetz, R & Villalonga, Z. (2011). Evaluation of a perceived organizational performance

scale using Research model Analysis.Australian Journal of Management, 12 (1):
507-522

Edwinah A., Mildred, D. &Roberta, D. (2013). Size and organizational effectiveness:

Maintaining a Balance. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 3(5), 115-
123

Ezigbo, C., (2011). Advanced management theory and applications, Immaculate Publications
Ltd, Enugu.

31
Hage, J. (2015). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 12, 72-92.

Hamdan A. & Mohammad, K. (2013). Impact of organizational structure on knowledge

management in the Jordanian Insurance Companies: From the Perspective of the
Supervisory Leadership.International Journal of Business and Social Science,
4(11), 70 -91

Hamann, P.N. (2013). Exploring the dimensions of organizational performance: A Construct

Validity Study Organizational Research Methods 1(16): 67-87

Hammoud, K. K. (2012). Organizational behaviour. Amman: Serenity House for Publishing

and Distribution.

Hassan, H. & Mojtaba, T. (2016). The relationship between structure and performance
organizational from emergency staff viewpoints. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery
Sciences, 3(2), 40-46.

Hatch, M. J. (2009). Organizational social structure. In organization theory (pp. 161- 199).
New York, Oxford.

Jackson, J. H. and Morgan, C. P. (2009). Organization theory,2nd Edition. Prentice Hall,

Upper Saddle River.

Kamran, G. E. (2017). On the impact of organizational structure on organizational efficiency

in industrial units: Industrial units of Kerman and Hormozgan Provinces.Macapá,
7(3), 95-105,

Louadi, M. (2008). The relationship among organizational structure, information, technology

and information processing in small Canadian firms.Canadian Journal of
Administration Sciences. 15(3): 180-199.

Maduenyi, S. Oke, A. O.and Ajagbe, M A. (2015). Impact of organizational structure on

organizational performance. International Conference on African Development
Issues (CU-ICADI) 2015: Social and Economic Models for Development Track

Malik, S. S.(2016). Organizational structure and employee’s performance: A study of

brewing firms in Nigeria. American Research Journal of Business and
Management, 3(1), 16 - 30

Masoud, P. K.&Narges. H. K. (2013). Organizational structure and Organizational

Effectiveness, J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(6),1071-1078

Miller, D. (2007). Strategy making and structure: analysis and implications for performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 7-32.

Mirjana, N. & Dino, B. (2013). The effects of organizational structure on the efficiency
managers. International Conference on Economic and Social Studies (ICESoS’13),
10-11, Sarajevo

32
Nelson, D. & Quick, C. J. (2011). Understanding organizational behaviour. Mason, OH:
South Western Cengage Learning,

Nkiruka, I. &Ogundeinde. A. (2016). Survival strategies and sustainability of small and

medium enterprises in the Oshodi-Isolo Local Government Area of Lagos State. Act
a Univ. Sapientiae, Economics and Business, 4(6): 103–118

Nwonu, C.O., Agbaeze, E.K. & Obi-Anike, H.O. (2017). Effect of organizational structure on
performance of selected manufacturing companies in Enugu State Nigeria. The
International Journal of Business & Management, 5(5):190 - 205

Olajide, O. T. (2015). Effects of organizational structure on job satisfaction in the Nigerian

financial sector: Empirical insight from selected banks in Lagos State. NG-Journal
of Social Development, 5(1): 56 -70

Qaryouti, M. Q. (1997), Organizational behaviour. 2nd Edition. Amman, Jordan.

Quangyen, T. &Yezhuang, T. (2013). Organizational structure: Influencing factors and

impact on a firm. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3(8),
229-236

Rahman, Z., &Bhattachryya, S. K. (2012). Virtual organization: A stratagem. Singapore

Management Review, 24(2), 29-46.

Robbins, S. (2010). Management. (9th ed.), Pearson, New Jersey, USA.

Sampson, C.J., Mirilla, A.T. and Emerole, G.A. (2016). Evaluation of organizational
structure on management effectiveness: A study of Dangote Cement Plc Gboko
Plant, Benue State. Singaporean Journal of Business Economics, and Management
Studies (SJBEM), 5(4), 28-46

Terry, W. (2013). Organizational sustainability: What is it, and why does it matter?Review of
Enterprise and Management Studies1(1), 20- 35

Quangyen, T. and Yezhuang, T. (2013). Organizational structure: Influencing factors and

impact on a firm. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3(15):
229-236

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Translated by A. M.

Henderson and Talcott parsons. New York: Oxford University Press

Wolf, D., (2002). Execution and structure. Internet: http://www.dewarsloan.com

Zheng, W., Yang, B., and McLean, G.N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure,
strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating Role of Knowledge
Management.Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 763-771.

33
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

The survey research method was used for this study. This method was considered

appropriate because surveys are useful in the measurement of public opinion, attitudes

and orientation which are dominant among a large population at a particular period

Okoro (2011). It is also a method structured for collecting data for the purpose of

describing a population too large to be observed directly (Babbie, 2007).

3.2 Population of the Study

The population of this study comprises staff of selected branches of First Bank Plc,

Nigeria. Based on the statistics made available to the researcher through the two

firms’ personnel management, the firms have the following number of staff.

Table 3.1: The breakdown of population size

BANK BRANCHES STAFF
New haven 40
Ogui road 30
Okpara avenue 32
Uwani 35
Agbani 28
TOTAL 168

3.3 Sampling Techniques

The simple random sampling technique was used in this research; a simple readom
sampling method is a sampling technique where every item in the population has an

34
even chance of being selected in the sample. It is a basic type of sampling method and
can easily be a component of a more complex sampling method.

The target population for the study consists of all staff and management of first bank
plc working in the 6 branches of the first bank plc in Enugu state. The sample size was
determined using the Yamane’s techniques as thus:

N
n= 2
1+ N (e)

Where

n= sample size

e= margin size (0.05)

N= sample population

168
n= 1+ 168(0.05) 2

168
n= 1+ 168(0.0025)

168
n= 1+ 0.42

168
n= 1.42

n= 118

Therefore the sample size is 118 respondents

3.4 Source of Data

The data for this study was gathered from two major sources- primary and secondary

sources. These two sources put together helped the researcher to produce a fairly

report with minimum bias or errors.

35
3.4.1 Primary Data

The primary data was sourced through questionnaire. The questionnaire contained

open ended and optional forms to eliminate bias in the choice of selection by the

respondents.

3.4.2 Secondary Data

The secondary sources were derived from existing but related study, which were

produced by earlier researchers. Specifically the materials used for extracting

secondary information for this purpose included journals, textbooks, and online

publications.

3.5 Instrument for Data Collection

The main instrument of the data collection used in this study is a structured

questionnaire. The designed questionnaire was divided into two sections. The

questions in section A were on general information while section B was meant to

directly address the research question. In the design of the questionnaire, a five point

Likert scale was adopted where a set of statement were given to the respondents for

them to choose from the options. Data were presented in tables and descriptive

statistics was used to analyze the data. The questionnaire was ranked as follows:

Key:
Strongly Agree = SA
Agree = A
Undecided = U
Disagree = D
Strongly disagree = SD

36
3.6 Method of Data Analyses

The study made use of statistical tools such as descriptive statistics and simple frequency

analysis in testing the statements on the questionnaire. Furthermore, all the hypotheses were

tested using model summary, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and co-efficient table in testing

the research hypotheses.

3.7 Validity of Research Instrument

Validity refers to the extent to which an empirical measure adequately reflects the real

meaning of the concept under consideration (Anyanwu, 2008). In this study, face validity was

adopted. This method was used in order to establish the face validity of the instrument, a

copy of the original draft of the questionnaire was presented to the project supervisor, who

made some corrections on the questionnaire before the final distribution of the copies of

questionnaire to respondents. The idea was to make sure that the questionnaire covered what

it was supposed to cover in relation with the objective of the study.

3.8 Reliability of Research Instrument

Gay (2009) defined reliability as the degree of consistency that the instrument demonstrates.

The researcher used pilot testing method because it was expected that some items or

questions would have several possible answers. The researcher established the reliability of

the questionnaires by computing the alpha coefficient of the items (questions) in the

questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha of 0.7 and above indicates a high level of internal

consistency in the questionnaire.

Table 3.2: Cronbach Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
0.74 9

37
 REFERENCES
Anyanwu, E. (2008). Groundnorth of research methods and procedures: introductory
approach. Enugu: John Jacob’s Publication limited.

Bailey, K. (1982). Methods of social research. London: Macmillan Limited.

Chukwu B. I. (2007). Fundamental of business statistics. Enugu: HorsethoneConcept.

Gay, B. R. (2009). Introduction to research methods.(2nded), Melbourne, Longman Cheshire.

Taro Y, (1964). Statistics: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

38
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Presentation of Results

For the purpose of this study and analysis, only relevant questions that will help us test
the hypothesis would be chosen and analyzed. In analyzing the data from the
questionnaires administered, simple percentage was used to analyse the data while simple
Linear Regression was used to determine the hypotheses. Thus, the data collected were
presented as follows:

4.1.1: Questionnaire Distribution and Return

Questionnaire Respondents Percentage of Respondents
Returned 85 72.1
Not returned 33 27.9
Total distributed 118 100
Source: Field Survey, 2020

Table 4.1.1 above shows the distribution and returns of the questionnaire. The copies of
questionnaire administered were 118 representing (100%) from which 85 (72.1%) were
returned, while 33 representing (27.9%) were not returned. The 85 copies of
questionnaire that were returned were considered adequate enough for making valid
deductions and conclusions. Hence, the research analysis was based on the returned
copies of questionnaire.

Table 4.1.2: Age Distribution of Respondents

OPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
21-29 20 23.5
30-39 45 52.9
40-49 15 17.6
50 and above 5 5.8
Total 85 100%
Source: Field Survey 2020

Table 4.1.2 shows the age distribution of respondents. In the table, 20 respondents
representing 23.5% out of the entire respondents are within the age of 21-29 years, 45

39
respondents representing 52.9% are within the age bracket of 30-39 years, 15 respondents
representing 17.6% are within the age bracket 40-49 years while 5 respondents
representing 5.8% out of the entire respondents are within the age bracket of 50 and
above.

Table 4.1.3: Sex Distribution of Respondents

OPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Male 30 35.3
Female 55 64.7
Total 85 100
Source: Field Survey 2020

The table above represents the sex distribution of the respondents. In the table, 30
respondents representing 35.3% indicted to be male while 55 respondents representing
64.7% indicated to be female. Thus, there are more females staff.

Table 4.1.4: Distribution of Respondents According to Material Status

OPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE %
Single 32 37.6
Married 53 62.4
Divorced - -
Total 85 100
Source: field survey, 2020

Table 4.1.4 shows that the responses of respondents on marital status. Out of 32
respondents representing 37.6% of the entire respondents are single while the 53
respondents representing 62.4% are married and none of the respondents indicated
divorced. Hence, it is crystal clear that married respondents are more than any other
group indicated in the table.

40
Table 4.1.5: Distribution on Educational Qualification
OPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE %
SSCE 2 2.4
B.Sc/HND 60 70.6
MA/M.Sc 23 27.1
PhD - -
Total 85 100
Source: Field Survey, 2020

Table 4.1.5 shows the responses of the research respondents on educational qualification.
In the table, 2 respondents representing 2.4% indicated that they are in possession of
SSCE qualification, 60 respondents representing 70.6% of the entire respondents stated
that they have qualification of B.Sc/HND, 23 respondents representing 27.1% indicated
MA/M.sc while no respondent indicated that he or she is in possession of PhD
qualification.

Table 4.1.6: Distribution on length of career service in the College

OPTIONS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Below 5 years 28 32.9
5 -10 years 46 54.1
10-20 years 7 8.2
21 years and above 4 4.7
TOTAL 85 100
Source: Field survey, 2020.

The table 4.1.6 presents the research respondents on length of career service of the staff in
the college. In the table, 28 respondents representing 32.9% of the entire respondents
states that they have worked below 5 years, 46 respondents representing 54.1% states that
they have worked for 5 -10 years, 7 respondents representing 8.2% states that they have
worked for 10- 20 years while the remaining 4 respondents representing 4.7% states that
they have worked for 21 years and above.

41
 4.1.1 Data Analysis
This is the analysis of the questions that contributes majorly on the deductions and
conclusions of the study. These questions were coined out from the research questions of
this study.
Table 4.1.7: Response on the effect of employee performance on employee job
satisfaction
S/N ITEMS S A U D SD N FX Decision
A X
1 My company do not apply too much rules and 18 20 9 45 2 85 290 3.4 Accepted
regulations to its employees
2 Tall Standardization Procedure enhances customer 60 24 1 - - 85 399 4.7 Accepted
confidence over our firm's product and services
3 Reducing rules and regulations do encourage 51 36 - 1 - 85 401 4.7 Accepted
creativity which creates room to satisfy customers
well
4 The standardizing of our organizational units has 61 20 4 - - 85 397 4.7 Accepted
enhances firms competiveness in its market
Total Mean 3.7 Accepted
Source: Field Survey, 2020.

Table 4.1.7 above shows the mean mark calculated from the response of the respondents on
the effect of organizational standardization on firm’s market share. Based on the decision
rule, that if X is below 2.5 it is considered rejected and if X is 2.5 and above it is considered
accepted. However, all the items in the table were accepted because they score the mean
score of 2.5 and the overall mean is 3.7 it therefore indicates that organizational
standardization affects firm’s market share.

Table 4.1.8: Mean rating of Responses of Respondents on the effect of

departmentalization on effective decision making in the firm
S/N ITEMS SA A U D SD N FX Decision
X
5 My organization has blurred internal boundaries 73 12 - - - 85 413 4.8 Accepted
that allow easy relationship with various units and
department of the organization
6 Certain decision are not always taken at higher 80 5 - - - 85 420 4.9 Accepted
level but operational level due to decentralization
as a result of few layers
7 Engaging lower employees in the decision making 34 46 - 5 - 85 364 4.3 Accepted
facilitates employee’s empowerment and sense of
belongingness.
8 Feedback from various departments contributes 61 14 2 - 8 85 375 4.4 Accepted
immensely to our good products or services
Total Mean 3.6 Accepted
Source: Field Survey, 2020.

42
 Table 4.1.8 above shows the mean mark calculated from the response of the respondents on
effect of departmentalization on effective decision making in the firm. Based on the decision
rule, that if X is below 2.5 it is considered rejected and if X is 2.5 and above it is considered
accepted. However, all the items in the table were accepted because they score the mean
score of 2.5 and the overall mean is 3.6 it therefore indicates that departmentalization
improves effective decision making in the firm.

Table 4.1.9: Mean rating of Responses of Respondents on the Effect of Centralization

on Firm’s Goal Attainment
S/N ITEMS SA A U D SD N FX X Decision

11 All operation activities to be undertaken by the 58 20 5 1 1 85 388 4.6 Accepted

corporation are approved by Chief Executive officer
12 No or little action can be taken by a staff on any 72 11 2 - - 85 410 4.9 Accepted
matter without supervisor permission
13 The easier implementation of a common policy for the 39 41 - 5 - 85 369 4.2 Accepted
organization as a whole as actualized through
centralization
14 Having a centralized flows of authority improve the 60 24 1 - - 85 399 4.7 Accepted
work quality along with high output
Total Mean 3.6 Accepted
Source: Field Survey, 2020.

Table 4.1.9 above shows the mean mark calculated from the response of the respondents on
effect of centralization on firm’s goal attainment. Based on the decision rule, that if X is
below 2.5 it is considered rejected and if X is 2.5 and above it is considered accepted.
However, all the items in the table were accepted because they score the mean score of 2.5
and the overall mean is 3.6 it therefore indicates that centralization affects firm’s goal
attainment.

4.2 Test of Hypotheses

Test of Hypothesis One

Ho: Organizational standardization has no significant influence on firm’s market share.

H i: Organizational standardization has significant influence on firm’s market share.

Table 4.11a: Model Summary

Model R R Adjusted Std. Error of the Estimate
Square RSquare
1 .663a .440 .431 .37617
a. Predictors: (Constant), organizational standardization

43
Table 4.11a above revealed that there is a strong significance at R = .663 between
organizational standardization and the level of influence on firm’s market share. An
examination of the table shows that R square = .440 which implies that organizational
standardization accounts for 44% of variations having a significant effect on firm’s market
share.
Table 4.11b: ANOVA
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 20.123 3 6.708 47.403 .000b
1 Residual 25.612 81 .142
Total 45.735 84
a. Predictors: (Constant), organizational standardization
b. Dependent Variable: firm’s market share

Table 4.11b shows that the F-value is the Mean Square Regression (6.708) divided by the
Mean Square Residual (0.142), yielding F=47.403. From the results, the model in this table is
statistically significant (Sig =.000). Therefore, organizational standardization is a significant
predictor of firm’s market share at F (3,184) = 47.403.

Table 4.12c: Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) .782 .236 3.309 .001

1 OS .230 .054 .663 4.272 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Firm’s market share

The table above revealed the degree of influence of organizational standardization on firm’s
market share and its level of significance. The statistical results is given as; (organizational
standardization; β=.230; t=4.272; p<0.01). The statistical result implies that organizational
standardization is a statistically significant predictor of firm’s market share.

Linear Regression Model is given as Y = a + βX

Where Y = firm’s market share

a = constant

βx = Coefficient of X

Therefore firm’s market share = .782 + 0.230OS

44
Based on the results in the Anova table above, the significance level for all items are less than
0.01 therefore we accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis. That is,
organizational standardization has significant influence on firm’s market share.

Test of Hypothesis Two

Ho: Departmentalization has no significant effect on effective decision making in the firm.
H i: Departmentalization has significant effect on effective decision making in the firm.
Table 4.12a: Model Summary
R R Adjusted Std. Error
Model Square R Square of the Estimate
1 .250a .063 .047 .45468
a. Predictors: (Constant), Departmentalization

Table 4.12a above revealed that there is significance at R = .250 between departmentalization
and the level of effective decision making in the firm. An examination of the table shows that
the R square = .063 which implies that departmentalization accounts for only 6.3% of
variations having a significant effect on the level of effective decision making in the firm.

Table 4.12b ANOVA

Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 2.503 3 .834 4.035 .008b
1 Residual 37.418 236 .207
Total 39.921 239
a. Predictors: (Constant), Departmentalization
b. Dependent Variable: Effective Decision making

Table 4.12b shows that the F-value is the Mean Square Regression (0.834) divided by the
Mean Square Residual (0.207), yielding F=4.035. The model in this table shows that
departmentalization is statistically significant at (Sig =.008) and is a significant predictor for
effective decision making in the firm at F (3,184) = 4.035.

Table 4.12c: Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 3.638 .286 12.735 .000
1 D .229 .093 .259 2.459 .015
a. Dependent Variable: Effective Decision Making

45
The table above revealed the degree of influence of departmentalization on effective decision
making in the firm and its level of significance. The statistical results is given as;
(departmentalization β =.019; t=.171; p>0.05). The statistical result implies that
departmentalization is a statistically significant predictor for effective decision making in the
firm.

Linear Regression Model is given as Y = a + βX

Where Y = effective decision making

a = constant

βx = Coefficient of X

Therefore effective decision making in the firm = 3.638 + 0.019D

Based on the results in the Anova table above, the significance level for departmentalization
is less than 0.01 therefore we accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis.
That is, departmentalization has significant effect on effective decision making in the firm.

Test of Hypothesis Three

Ho: Centralization has no significant effect on firm’s goal attainment.

H i: Centralization has significant effect on firm’s goal attainment.

Table 4.13a: Model Summary

R R Adjusted Std. Error
Model Square R Square of the Estimate
1 .740a .548 .541 .33794
a. Predictors: (Constant), Centralization

Table 4.13a above revealed that there is a relationship at R= .740 between centralization and
the level of firm’s goal attainment. An examination of the table shows that the R square
= .548 which implies that centralization accounts for 54.8% of variations having a significant
effect on the level of firm’s goal attainment.

46
Table 4.13b ANOVA
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 25.064 3 .834 4.035 .008b
1 Residual 20.671 81 .207
Total 45.735 84
a. Predictors: (Constant), Centralization
b. Dependent Variable: Firm’s goal attainment

Table 4.13b shows that the F-value is the Mean Square Regression (8.355) divided by the
Mean Square Residual (0.114), yielding F=73.155. The model reveals that centralization is
statistically significant at (Sig =.000) therefore it is a significant predictor of firm’s goal
attainment at F (3,184) = 73.155.

Table 4.13c: Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Standardized T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) .806 .203 3.973 .000
1 C .146 .047 .740 3.118 .002
a. Dependent Variable: Firm’s goal attainment

The table above revealed the degree of influence of centralization had on firm’s goal
attainment and its level of significance. The statistical results is given as; (centralization β
=.146; t=3.118; p<0.05). The statistical result implies that centralization is a statistically
significant predictor of the level of firm’s goal attainment.

Linear Regression Model is given as Y = a + βX

Where Y = firm’s goal attainment

a = constant

βx = Coefficient of X

Therefore firm’s goal attainment = .806 + 0.146OC

Based on the results in the Anova table above, the significant levels for centralization is less
than 0.01 therefore we accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis. That
is, centralization has significant effect on firm’s goal attainment.

47
4.3 Discussion of Findings

Effect of Organizational Standardization on Firm’s Market Share

The result revealed that organizational standardization has significant influence on firm’s
market share. This is consistent with international previous studies of Maduenyi, Oke, and
Ajagbe (2015) and Kamran (2017) which results showed that organizational structure has an
impact on organizational performance. Part of the organizational performance revealed were
expansion of firms market share. However, a study by Nwonu, Agbaeze and Obi-Anike
(2017) concludes that organizational structure in pharmaceutical manufacturing firms affects
performance except including its market share.

Effect of Departmentalization on Effective Decision Making in the Firm

The result revealed that departmentalization has significant effect on improving effective
decision making in the firm. This result is coherent with the study conducted by Sampson,
Mirilla and Emerole (2016) found that line and staff organizational structure and
product/market organizational Structure are organizational structure adopted in the
organization, the correlation analysis result indicated that at P>0.05 level of significance,
organizational structure has a strong positive effect on managerial effectiveness with
correlation coefficient of (r = 0.811). The Logistic Regression result revealed that;
Centralization (sig≤0.05; w = 2.764), Formalization (sig≤0.01; w = 11.609), and effective
Organization Communication (sig≤0.01; w = 5.342), are structural variables that are
significantly related with the effectiveness of managers in Dangote Cement PLC, Gboko
Plant. Additionally, Ogbo, Nwankwere, Orga and Igwe (2015) found out that
departmentalization enhanced better and more informed decision making in technical and
service firms in Nigeria; that task routine affected staff productivity both positively and
negatively; and that a significant positive relationship existed between narrow span of control
and efficiency in organizations.

Effect of Centralization on Firm’s Goal Attainment

The result revealed that centralization has significant effect on firm’s goal attainment. This
result is consistent with Linda (2012) which revealed that among others that organizational
structure has a great impact in the effective management of organizations. The study of Esra
and Ozgur (2014) also showed that formalization and specialization increase organizational
effectiveness. Hassan and Mojtaba (2016) revealed that there is correlation-coefficients of the

48
complexity and centralization dimensions of organizational performance were 0.979 and
0.493, respectively. Correlation-coefficient of the formalization dimension of organizational
performance was obtained at 0.287. The study concludes that all the dimensions of
organizational structure (formalization, complexity, and centralization) had significant,
positive correlations with organizational performance.

49
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary of Findings

Having carried out this research project, the researcher made the following findings:

i. The study revealed that organizational standardization has significant influenced

firm’s market share (organizational standardization β=.230; t=4.272; p<0.01).

ii. The study revealed that departmentalization has significant effect on effective
decision making in the firm (departmentalization β =.019; t=.171; p>0.05).
iii. The study revealed that centralization has significant effect on firm’s goal attainment.
The statistical results is given as; (Centralization β =.146; t=3.118; p<0.05).

5.2 Conclusions

This research was effect of organizational structure on employee performance. However,

results from the findings shown that effective organizational structure facilitates proper
working relationships among departments in the organization and this enhances effective
decision making in the firm. This leads to improve firm’s efficiency as firms are able to
accomplish its goals and expand its market share. Thus, the study concludes that
organizational structure enhances organizational performance and ensures sustainability of
the banking sector.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusion, the researcher made the following recommendations:

i. Management should ensure that all the staff are properly trained continually to align
to organizational standard as this will help to give the organisation a competitive edge
in the market.
ii. Managers should learn to allow sub-departmental heads to partake in decision making
process as this will result in effective decision making since they know their different
department very well.

50
iii. Managers and business owners should ensure that span of control is kept at a level

that can be effectively handled by the individual manager as this will aide in ensuing

firm’s goal attainment.

51
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrews, P. (2011). Job satisfaction and organizational structure: a comparative study of nine
social service departments. Journal of Organizational, 22 (3):347-366.

Anyanwu, E. (2008). Groundnorth of research methods and procedures: introductory

approach. Enugu: John Jacob’s Publication limited.

Atiqa, A. & Imran, H. N. (2014). The impact of institutional structure on organizational

effectiveness: Considering organizational justice as a mediator. Behaviour Journal,
7(2), 25-54

Bailey, K. (1982). Methods of social research. London: Macmillan Limited.

Bloisi, W., Cook, C.W. &Hunsaker, P.L. (2007). Management and organizational behaviour.
2nd edition. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill

Bulent, A. & Adnan C. (2015). The role of organizational culture on effectiveness. E + M

Ekonomie A Management, 3(9), 25 -38

Child, J. (2015). Organizational Structure, Environment And Performance: The Role of

Strategic ChoiceSociology, 6(1), 34-67

Chukwu B. I. (2007). Fundamental of business statistics. Enugu: HorsethoneConcept.

CIPD (2012). Responsible and sustainable business: Human resource leading the way – A
collection of “thought pieces. London: CIPD.

Clemmer, J. (2013). Organization structure limits or liberates high performance.

Colbert, B. &Kurucz, E. (2017). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business

sustainability and the role for human resource management, Human Resource
Planning 30

Cyert, R. M & March, J (1963). Behavioural theory of the firm. 2nd Ed, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, Prentice Hall

Daft, R. (2008). Organization theory and Design. (5th ed.), New York, West Publishing
Company

Davidow, W. H., & Malone, M. S. (2012). The virtual corporation. New York, NY: Harper
Collins.

Demsetz, R & Villalonga, Z. (2011). Evaluation of a perceived organizational performance

scale using rasch model analysis.Australian Journal of Management, 12 (1), 507-522

52
Edwinah A., Mildred, D. &Roberta, D. (2013). Size and organizational effectiveness:
Maintaining a Balance. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 3(5), 115-
123

Ezigbo, C., (2011). Advanced management theory and applications, Immaculate Publications
Ltd, Enugu.

Gay, B. R. (2009). Introduction to research methods. (2nded), Melbourne, Longman

Cheshire.

Hage, J. (2015). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties, Administrative

Science Quarterly, 12, 72-92.

Hamann, P.N. (2013). Exploring the dimensions of organizational performance: A Construct

Validity Study Organizational Research Methods 1(16), 67-87

Hamdan A. & Mohammad, K. (2013). Impact of organizational structure on knowledge

management in the Jordanian Insurance Companies: From the Perspective of the
Supervisory Leadership. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(11),
70 -91

Hammoud, K. K. (2012). Organizational behavior. Amman: Serenity House for Publishing

and Distribution.

Hassan, H. & Mojtaba, T. (2016). The relationship between structure and performance
organizational from emergency staff viewpoints. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery
Sciences, 3(2), 40-46.

Hatch, M. J. (2009). Organizational social structure. In organization theory (pp. 161- 199).
New YorkL Oxford.

Jackson, J. H. and Morgan, C. P. (2009). Organization theory, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River.

Jackson, J. H., and C. P. Morgan, (1982). OrganizationTheory, Prentice-Hall.

Kamran, G. E. (2017). On the impact of organizational structure on organizational efficiency

in industrial units: Industrial units of Kerman and Hormozgan Provinces.Macapá,
7(3),95-105.

Louadi, M. (2008). The relationship among organizational structure, information, technology

and information processing in small Canadian firms.Canadian Journal of
Administration Sciences. 15(3): 180-199.

Maduenyi, S. Oke, A. O.andAjagbe, M A. (2015). Impact of organisational structure on

organisational performance. International Conference on African Development Issues
(CU-ICADI) 2015: Social and Economic Models for Development Track
Malik, S. S.(2016). Organizational structure and employee’s performance: A study of
brewing firms in Nigeria. American Research Journal of Business and Management,
3(1), 16 - 30

53
Masoud, P. K.&Narges. H. K. (2013). Organizational structure and Organizational
Effectiveness, J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(6),1071-1078

Miller, D. (2007). Strategy making and structure: analysis and implications for performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 7-32.

Mirjana, N. & Dino, B. (2013). The effects of organizational structure on the efficiency
managers. International Conference on Economic and Social Studies (ICESoS’13),
10-11, Sarajevo

Nelson, D. & Quick, C. J. (2011). Understanding organizational behavior. Mason, OH:

South Western Cengage Learning,

Nkiruka, I. &Ogundeinde. A. (2016). Survival strategies and sustainability of small and

medium enterprises in the Oshodi-Isolo Local Government Area of Lagos State. Act a
Univ. Sapientiae, Economics and Business, 4(6), 103–118

Nwonu, C.O., Agbaeze, E.K. & Obi-Anike, H.O.(2017). Effect of organizational structure on
performance of selected manufacturing companies in Enugu State Nigeria. The
International Journal of Business & Management, 5(5):190 - 205

Ogbo, A.I., Nwankwere, F. C., Orga, C. C. & Igwe, A. A. (2015). Impact of structure on
organizational performance of selected technical and service firms in Nigeria.
Corporate Ownership & Control, 13(1), 1278 – 1284

Olajide, O. T.(2015). Effects of organizational structure on job satisfaction in the nigerian

financial sector: Empirical insight from selected banks in Lagos State. NG-Journal of
Social Development, 5(1): 56 -70

Qaryouti, M. Q. (1997), Organizational behavior. 2nd Edition. Amman, Jordan.

Quangyen, T. &Yezhuang, T. (2013). Organizational Structure: Influencing Factors and

Impact on a Firm. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3(10)
229-236

Quangyen, T. &Yezhuang, T. (2013). Organizational structure: Influencing factors and

impact on a firm. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 3(8),
229-236

Rahman, Z., &Bhattachryya, S. K. (2012). Virtual organization: A stratagem. Singapore

Management Review, 24(2), 29-46.

Robbins, S. (2010). Management. (9th ed.), Pearson, New Jersy, USA.

Sampson, C.J., Mirilla, A.T. & Emerole, G.A. (2016). Evaluation of organizational structure
on management effectiveness: A study of Dangote Cement Plc Gboko Plant, Benue
State. Singaporean Journal of Business Economics, and Management Studies
(SJBEM), 5(4), 20-36

54
Sampson, C.J., Mirilla, A.T. & Emerole, G.A. (2016). Evaluation of organizational structure
on management effectiveness: A study of Dangote Cement Plc Gboko Plant, Benue
State. Singaporean Journal of Business Economics, and Management Studies
(SJBEM), 5(4), 28-46

Taro Y, (1964). Statistics: An introductory analysis. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Terry, W. (2013). Organizational sustainability: What is it, and why does it matter?.Review of
Enterprise and Management Studies, 1(1), 34-47

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. translated by A. M.

Henderson and Talcott parsons. New York: Oxford University Press

Wolf, D., (2002). Execution and structure. Internet: http://www.dewarsloan.com

Zheng, W., Yang, B., and McLean, G.N. (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure,
strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating Role of Knowledge
Management.Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 763-771.

55
 APPENDIX

QUESTIONNAIRE

University of Nigeria Enugu Campus,

Faculty of Business Administration
Department of Management
6th February, 2021

REQUEST FOR THE COMPLETION OF QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a student of the above named institution and Department, carrying out a research on the
topic titled; “Effects of organisational structure on employee performance (A case study of
First bank Plc, Enugu)”
The attached questionnaire contains a set of questions on the study which require your sincere
completion. It is all part of the requirement for the award of Bachelor of Science degree
(B.Sc.) in management. All information to be provided will be strictly used only for academic
purposes.

Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Charles

56
 SECTION A
INSTRUCTION: Please tick (√) in your preferred option

1. In which of these age bracket do you belong?

a. 21-29 years [ ] b. 30-39 years [ ] c. 40-49 [ ] d. 50 and above [ ]

2. Which is your gender?

a. Male [ ] b. Female [ ]

3. Which is your marital status?

a. Single [ ] b. Married [ ] c. Divorced [ ]

4. Education qualification:
a. SSCE [ ]
b. B.Sc/HND [ ]
c. MA/M.Sc [ ]
d. PhD [ ]

5. How long have you worked at Nsukka local Government Secretariat

a. Below 5 years [ ]
b. 5 – 10 [ ]
c. 10 – 20 [ ]
d. 21 years above [ ]

Search B: Research

Please in your own opinion: For each of the statements below kindly tick only one based on
the following scale. Strongly agree – SA; Agree – A; Disagree – D; Strongly Disagree - SD.

Objective one: To examined the effect of organizational standardization on firm’s

market share.
No Item Statement SA A UD D SD
1 My company do not apply too much rules and
regulations to its employees
2 Tall Standardization Procedure enhances customer
confidence over our firm's product and services
3 Reducing rules and regulations do encourage
creative which creates room to satisfy customers
well
4 The standardizing of our organizational units has
enhances firms competiveness in its market

57
Objective two: To ascertain the effect of departmentalization on improve effective
decision making in the firm.
No Item Statement SA A UD D SD
5 My organization has blurred internal boundaries that
allow easy relationship with various units and
department of the organization
6 Certain decision are not always taken at higher level
but operational level due to decentralization as a
result of few layers
7 Engaging lower employees in the decision making
facilitate employee empowerment and sense of
belongingness.
8 Feedback from various departments contributes
immensely to our good products or services

Objective three: To ascertain the effect of centralization on firm’s goal attainment

No Item Statement SA A UD D SD
9 All operation activities to be undertaken by the
corporation are approved by Chief Executive officer

10 No or little action can be taken by a staff on any

matter without supervisor permission
11 The easier implementation of a common policy for
the organization as a whole as actualized through
centralization
12 Having a centralized flows of authority improve the
work quality along with high output

58