Line-Staff Organization

Classical theories of organization associated with Henri Fayol, Frederick W. Taylor, and others define formal organizations as collective enterprises identified by a clear division of labor and authority. These theories view decision-making power as flowing from a unified command structure. Relationships between individuals, groups, and divisions are based on lines of authority that are predetermined. Typically, work is carried out in accordance with specialized functions, and authority is exercised in a hierarchical manner. In a highly centralized structure, decisions are made by a few and flow downward through the enterprise. However, as organizations grow in scope and complexity, they need to be flexible in the extent to which coordination and control are centrally applied. The principle of line-staff organization introduces flexibility into hierarchical lines of authority, while trying to preserve a unified command structure.

Line groups are engaged in tasks that constitute the technical core of the firm or the subunit of a larger enterprise. They are directly involved in accomplishing the primary objective of the enterprise. In manufacturing, line groups engage in work related to production. In the service sector, the line group is responsible for its customers. Line groups have final decision-making authority regarding technical organizational purposes.

Staff groups are engaged in tasks that provide support for line groups. They consist of advisory (legal), service (human resources), or control (accounting) groups. Staff groups support those engaged in the central productive activity of the enterprise. Thus, staff groups create the infrastructure of the organization. Human resources, information technologies, and finance are infrastructural functions. Staff groups provide analysis, research, counsel, monitoring, evaluation, and other activities that would otherwise reduce organizational efficiency if carried out by personnel in line groups. Staff groups are therefore responsible to their appropriate line units. Although line and staff may operate at different levels of an organization, all positions are defined relative to their line or staff function. Differentiating line and staff functions is straightforward in that it involves identifying the beneficiaries of the activity, product, or service. If the beneficiaries are employees, then it is a staff function. Otherwise, the activity is related to the line organization.

By modifying organizational hierarchies to include staff functions, organizational capacity for processing information is increased without sacrificing lines of authority. However, studies indicate that although line-staff innovations may preserve the appearance of formal line authority, staff groups, particularly specialized staff, often assume de facto decision-making responsibilities because their lines of communication to upper management are shorter. This is the case for staff specialists who monitor and report on line performance. The authority of staff specialists may consist of pure advice-giving or specialists may have the right to pass along directives from upper management [Page 531]to those they do not formally supervise. This naturally leads to power struggles between line and staff. Communication failures, poorly defined responsibilities, and divergent interests create unclear lines of authority that lead to intra-organizational conflict and reduce organizational performance. Clarifying supervisory relationships reduces organizational dysfunction and increases effectiveness.