Introduction 

AGL Energy Limited of the Australian energy industry is a for-profit organisation. On the other hand, EA which facilitates the deaf and hard of hearing is a not-for-profit. A non-profit company provides a social or communal purpose and reinvests the extra revenue into its goals instead of distributing profits while a for-profit business creates profit for its proprietors or investors.

This essay will deal with a thesis statement that is a critique of AGL and Expression Australia (EA) will be done and this will involve comparing them based on size, services, customers, processes, and structure showing the operational difference. Specific focus areas covered by the study are the distinctive structure of these organisations, their roles, duties, assets, and activities, and the organisational design of their operation.

Body 

Comparing organisational characteristics here compare the size, scale, industry context, and service offering between AGL, as a for-profit organization and EA, as a non-profit organisation. Considering the size, AGL Energy is a for-profit organisation while EA is a not-for-profit organisation based on the industry type, service, customer group and organisational structure. Profit and non-profit organisations are differentiated based on their strategic and economic goal (Miragaia, Ferreira & Vieira, 2024).

AGL is an Australian publicly listed integrated electricity, gas, and renewables company while EA is a small not-for-profit organisation specialising in services to the deaf and hard of hearing people. AGL is the largest national electricity generator in Australia. Contrary to this, EA served only 16 places in Tasmania and Victoria for 16000 hard-of-hearing adults (Deafnav.com.au 2024).  

South Australian electricity company AGL made A$860 million in net income in 2022 and has plans to install 12 GW of renewable energy by 2035 (Agl.com.au 2024) [Referred to Appendix 1]. Therefore, based on the structure and scale of profit organisation AGL is a more complex system than others. 

There is a significant difference based on customer base as well. They have many consumers among residential consumers and commercial employers using electricity and gas. While, EA is established to provide interpreting services, employment assistance, and advocacy for the deaf, and the impaired hearing in a specialised community sector.

These organisations represent two different business strategies. EA, within the community service sector, is an organisation that focuses on people, it is a value and mission-driven organisation that works with donations, government grants, and partnerships to help vulnerable groups (Agl.com.au, 2024). Customer segments in AGL are general groups as they offer electricity, natural gas, power, and renewable solutions.

However, as EA is a special charitable organisation, it targets specially-abled persons (hearing impairment) (Expression.com.au, 2024). This is regarding the size and operation environment and the fact that AGL has a commercial-oriented goal while EA has a social-oriented goal. 

Here will explore roles, and responsibilities to facilitate the smooth operations of these organisations. According to the “Open System Model,” this smooth operation is not isolated, continuously a business’s external and internal environment has influenced it (Burke, 2022). AGL has a hierarchical structure that assists their business of distribution and marketing of energy and appeals to various legal requirements, roles and responsibilities which are highly decentralised. Organisational structure is thus considered as both internal and external influence, that satisfies the Open System Model.

The organisational structure of AGL allows for timeliness and measures of the “Climate Transition Action Plan” (CTAP) to address environmental laws, resource constraints, and all stakeholders’ expectations (Agl.com.au, 2024). EA is a non-profit organisation and its main operations involve service delivery, advocacy, and community outreach. The organisational structure of this is deliberately designed to be responsive more to the mission than to the market (Agl.com.au, 2024). EA’s staffing positions (internal environment) are oriented toward outreach and representation, serving the Deaf and hard-of-hearing populace.

The CSR Model shows how solicitous businesses trade profit, bear in mind the social ramifications of their activities and admit eco-concerns into their logistic operations (Khuong, Truong An & Thanh Hang, 2021). Concerning this CSR framework (external environment), particularly based on philanthropic responsibility, there is a major distinctive area for these two types of organisations, following which they can operate smoothly, considering the “Open System Model.”

NFP organisations mainly donate finances, time, or products to charitable, educational, and humanitarian institutions, apparently termed “Philanthropic CSR” (Wang & Pala, 2021). In contrast, FP organisational types usually consider “Strategic CSR” which indicates their social contribution will be directly linked with their business goal and that potentiality will vary on their profit margin.

The workflows in these organisations are a result of their operational concerns. AGL's decision-making is autocratic supporting the distribution of energy and compliance (Agl.com.au, 2024). In contrast, EA's decision-making is congenial with making decisions based on the impact it will have in providing the service and supporting advocacy. Hence, considering both cases, there are rules of operational tactics and strategies, which create healthy workflow. 

Resources and Processes of AGL and EA are significantly essential to managing business performance, illustrated here by using “7S-framework”. Considering the “Structure” of this framework, here, infrastructure development is a critical process needed to predict the performance of AGL as a capital-intensive energy company. Key “System” of AGL includes resources like owning power plants, renewable energy technologies, supply lines, and distribution networks. Such resources require significant investment and are regulated by a top-down approach (Bodó, Brekke & Hoepman, 2021).

For instance, AGL’s CTAP hinges on renewable energy infrastructure like solar farms and battery storage facilities that are governed by stringer regulatory and operation controls to recall the legacy of environmental laws and other social responsibilities that define its technical skills. Concerning ethical dilemmas in this aspect, here may employ the TBL theory in analysing the company's operations focusing on people, the planet and profit.

The utilisation of advanced technologies including AI, digital twins, robotics, IoT and cloud computing in its service delivery process to improve its energy distribution activities (Brin & Nehme 2021). Employees are its key staff. Management of these resources, AGL follows the Style of “formal or hierarchical leadership.” EA’s “Structure” is a much more humanitarian, bottom-up approach. EA’s “System” incorporates key organisational resources are its Staff, including personnel, consisting of paid staff, volunteers, and other contacts in the community.

These resources are vital in providing advocacy, service and support to the Deaf and hard-of-hearing population, which defines its staff’s advocacy skill. (Expression.com.au, 2024). The activities of EA are de-centralised and this is deliberate for versatility in responding to the needs of the community a fundamental key to community development. This accords with the required Digital Transformation Model that demonstrates the necessity of suitably placed digital tools and methods in the communication and delivery of services (Sundaram, Sharma & Shakya, 2020).

Online technologies for extending community engagement, delivering services when needed, and offering instant support constitute important aspects of the organisation's workflow. Controlling of these resources and processes AGL has strict resources controlled within a centralised framework with reports and accountability systems.

EA has the majority of control organised acceptor decentralised team-based where personnel is free to address the community needs as they evolve (Gaspary, Moura & Wegner, 2020). Management of these resources, EA follows the Style of “Collaborative leadership.” Hence, it can be concluded that they are differentiated in strategic adaptation for resource management. AGL promotes a profit-driven strategy while EA executes a community-focused strategy. However, their shared values are signified by each organisational differentiated practice. 

The organisational structures of AGL and EA provide distinctive viewpoints accomplishing strategic directions, discussed here. Energy company AGL employs a tall hierarchical structure consisting of a board of directors, an executive leadership team, department heads, team leaders, and staff [Referred to Appendix 2]. This formal structure is appropriate for the profit-maximisation system and the value of shareholders, which demand responsibility, a distinct hierarchy of authority, and the management of large of financial assets.

By the concept of "Complexity Theory" it can be asserted that to govern its broad operations and technologies and address the regulatory environment, the structure has been adopted (Hidalgo, 2021). Such a tall structure of AGL ensures specialisation and division of labour where different departments of the operation deal with different operations such as finance, marketing, and sustainability. However, this kind of structure poses a problem due to enhanced complexity and less flexible management.

Hence, research has acknowledged that most of industries recently transformed their business structure to “Agile Organisation” rather than traditional complex hierarchy. Agile structure influences the organisation to redesign as per organisational objectives, which is one of the key aspects of a successful business [Referred to Appendix 3]. EA organises its structure on a flat organisational model, with a smaller number of layers separating executive and administrative management from the employees [Referred to Appendix 4].

This provides flexibility in staffing which is important for such a non-profit organisation (Mosca, Gianecchini & Campagnolo, 2021). The structure is flat, hence fostering decentralisation of power and fostering teamwork, in response to the community's needs. This decentralisation is advantageous for bottom-up efforts and more rapid response (Anand & Daft, 2007). This structure is under Complexity Theory by structuring EA that allows it to function well in an adaptable and creative way.

A Paradigm Shift in organisational design depicts a trend towards decentralisation in many industries as influenced by the need for orientation of new realities as depicted by the shallow business model of EA. Hence, these are key strengths while simultaneously not being pressurised under the strict hierarchical system with a lot of bureaucratic work. 

Conclusion 

AGL’s tall and hierarchy are favourable to its profit motive and capital-intensive mode of functioning, while EA’s flat structure and decentralised organisation help it to respond to the community motif and provide services. Hence, by restating the thesis statement, resources and processes are all oriented concerning their objectives. AGL is all about business gain and productivity, whereas EA focuses on representation and sensitivity. Therefore, both profit and non-profit organisations are essential to the growth and welfare of society as seen from their organic structural styles. 

 

Top Management Samples

Reference List

Agl.com.au, (2024), $100 sign-up credit when you join AGL Electricity, Retrieved from: https://www.agl.com.au/
Agl.com.au, (2024), Our approach to the environment, Retrieved from: https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/sustainability/environment
Anand, N., & Daft, R. L. (2007). What is the right organization design?. Organisational dynamics, 36(4), 329-344. Retrieved from:  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard-Daft/publication/228215559_What_is_the_Right_Organization_Design/links/5ffd987a45851553a03a6749/What-is-the-Right-Organization-Design.pdf 
Bodó, B., Brekke, J. K., & Hoepman, J. H. (2021). Decentralisation: A multidisciplinary perspective. Internet Policy Review, 10(2), 1-21. Retrieved from: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/235966/1/176429260X.pdf
Brin, P., & Nehme, M. (2021). Sustainable development in emerging economy: Using the analytical hierarchy process for corporate social responsibility decision making. Journal of information technology management, 13(Special Issue: Role of ICT in Advancing Business and Management), 159-174. Retrieved from: https://jitm.ut.ac.ir/article_80744_1e9eb0beda4d8c3e7cb6defa1e8614fc.pdf    
Burke, W. W. (2022). Organization development. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. Retrieved from: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=3f1f1242c04614414bdde220c6c0d5bfb441435e
Deafnav.com.au, (2024), Expression Australia, Retrieved from: https://deafnav.com.au/services/expression-australia#:~:text=Formerly%20known%20as%20VicDeaf%20or,sites%20in%20Victoria%20and%20Tasmania
Expression.com.au, (2024), Independent Not For Profit Audiologists, Retrieved from: https://www.expression.com.au/, (Accessed on 7th October 2024)
Gaspary, E., Moura, G. L. D., & Wegner, D. (2020). How does the organisational structure influence a work environment for innovation?. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 24(2-3), 132-153. Retrieved from:   https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas-Wegner/publication/323811586_How_does_the_organisational_structure_influence_a_work_environment_for_innovation/links/5e5dbb74a6fdccbeba146b8f/How-does-the-organisational-structure-influence-a-work-environment-for-innovation.pdf 
Hidalgo, C. A. (2021). Economic complexity theory and applications. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(2), 92-113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-00275-1
Khuong, M. N., Truong An, N. K., & Thanh Hang, T. T. (2021). Stakeholders and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programme as key sustainable development strategies to promote corporate reputation—evidence from Vietnam. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1917333. Retrieved from:    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/23311975.2021.1917333 
Mckinsey.com, (2024), Getting Organisational Redesign Right, Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/getting-organizational-redesign-right
Miragaia, D. A., Ferreira, J. J., & Vieira, C. T. (2024). Efficiency of non-profit organisations: A DEA analysis in support of strategic decision-making. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(1), 3239-3265. Retrieved from:   https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13132-023-01298-6.pdf   
Mosca, L., Gianecchini, M., & Campagnolo, D. (2021). Organizational life cycle models: a design perspective. Journal of Organization Design, 10, 3-18. Retrieved from:  https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s41469-021-00090-7.pdf
Sundaram, R., Sharma, D. R., & Shakya, D. A. (2020). Digital transformation of business models: A systematic review of the impact on revenue and supply chain. International Journal of Management, 11(5). DOI: 10.34218/IJM.11.5.2020.002
Wang, Y., & Pala, B. (2021). Communicating philanthropic CSR versus ethical and legal CSR to employees: empirical evidence in Turkey. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 26(1), 155-175. Retrieved from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/CCIJ-01-2020-0014/full/pdf