Reference no: EM133412212

Debate Topic: "Conventional Organizations are Passe in the Twenty-first Century"

For centuries, the conventional organizational structure was used to establish hierarchical control. The Greek, then Roman Empire, developed a hierarchical military model employed to reinforce chain of command. It persists as the dominant structure in modern militaries and many organizations today. During the 20th century, two World Wars influenced consecutive generations of individuals entering the work force. The industrial age was fortified by military leadership training; a top-down hierarchical methodology (Kenton 2022). This hierarchical model is better known today as the conventional (vertical) organizational structure. Decision making authority is centralized and concentrated at the top levels of management (Draft, 2018). Responsibilities are clearly delineated, and subordinates adopt the guidance of their superiors (Kenton 2022).

The command/control style of leadership worked well in the industrial age due to little need for information free flow and rigid repetitive responsibilities; however, the past 30 years digital revolution with proliferation of technology, innovation and remote operations necessitate information sharing in a globalized society. Vertical organizational structures impede movement through departmental barriers and managerial bureaucracy. Modern approaches to organizational structure support information sharing, flexibility and adaptability to maintain competitive advantage in highly globalized and rapidly changing modern markets (Kenton 2022).

A hallmark of the modern horizontal work environment is decentralized authority and reduction in middle management. Leaders must share and develop knowledge and talent of employees, shifting from rigid to permeable structures that facilitate innovation and idea generation across organizational boundaries unencumbered by bureaucracy (Kelly 2013). This fluid interaction and overlap are characteristic of 21th century horizontal models (Kelly, 2013).

Despite a push towards more horizontal structures, the new systems do not come without their own flaws. Namely, arguments against the horizontal structure are no clear line of authority, ambiguity regarding responsibility and decision-making, a lack of accountability, and the inability to support growth (Joseph, 2019). New structures have only minimal upper management and employees manage themselves. Horizontal structures allow for empowerment of employees, who remain on track with projects and take accountability for their work (Joseph, 2019). With a horizontal structure, employees are free to make decisions quickly and effectively to yield the best results on projects and with new challenges (Lefebvre, 2018). Flatter structures allow companies to work with leaders and leadership as opposed to traditional controlling and management (Gleeson, 2017). With leadership, employees take responsibility and accountability for their work because the leaders encourage innovation and creativity. Though the new age of organizations lacks the rigid structure of before, this does not hinder them from growth. With proper leadership, empowerment, and planning, organizations can continue to expand as they have in the past.

A new way of running a company that has popped up in the last couple of years is that of a boss-less structure. In the traditional system, it is top-heavy with management which makes the system both cumbersome and costly upwards of 33% of payroll (Hamel, 2011). Another problem with the traditional way is that decisions are made by one or a few people and that can lead to a close-minded approach that could lead a company to disaster. Lastly, traditional structures require from manager approval which can lead to slow responses to issues that are time-sensitive (Hamel, 2011). Unlike a traditional structure, a boss-less one, is where employees can negotiate responsibilities and compensation with one another, with no titles.

One example of a company that is trying this approach is the Morning Star Company). Their approach to the boss-less management style of doing things is that they make the mission the boss. One other important factor in having this boss-less structure is that information is transparent. Employees at Morningstar use all information available to monitor their work and make decisions (Hamel, 2011).

Another example of a boss-less structure is that of Zappos which uses holacracy. This is defined as a comprehensive practice for structuring, governing, and running an organization that removes power from the management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can be executed autonomously without a micromanaging boss (Nowogrodski, 2015). Holacracy is made of 4 components, the top is the anchor circle made out of the board, secondly is the General company circle which is the executive leadership, then sub-circles are specific functions like marketing and production, and fourth is roles that are the typical jobs.

Discuss what you got from this post.
What question can you give to this post?