ASQ Discussion Boards

Replies: 6

Bruce Waltuck

organizational structure
Posted: Oct 21, 2005 1:52 PM

Hi all,

the dominant model of organizational structure seems to still be based on a hierarchical, or "pyramid" shaped org chart. From the CEO or President at the top, down through some layers of management, in ever-increasing numbers until it reaches the bottom, or front-line workers.

In your experience, is this the best way to organize humans to achieve some kind of work and business objectives? Why?

If not, what alternative organizational models can you suggest? What organizing principles are your alternative models based on? What are the presumed advantages of the alternative models?

Thanks everyone,

Bruce W

William Pflanz

Posts: 1,405

Re: organizational structure
Posted: Oct 27, 2005 9:15 AM

> In your experience, is this the best way to organize
> humans to achieve some kind of work and business
> objectives? Why?

In these type of discussions, the inference is always that a hierarchical, or "pyramid" shaped org chart is not the way to operate a business. Many successful businesses operate that way.

> If not, what alternative organizational models can
> you suggest? What organizing principles are your
> alternative models based on? What are the presumed
> advantages of the alternative models?

Although there may be alternative models and some may be successful, they are not universally adopted. That could mean that they are not best practices, not fully understood so not adopted or are just being rejected.

There are many leadership styles that can be applied and each business is different. A new startup business requires different management than an established international conglomerate or a company in a slowly dying industry. It would be a mistake to choose one management hierarchy over another without understanding the needs of the business.

The other variable is what the employees want. Some employees are totally happy with a hierarchial organization and don't want a team approach like self directed work teams. If a particular management style is chosen then you are obligating yourself to find employees that want that style.

Bill Pflanz

Robert O'Brien

Posts: 41

Re: organizational structure
Posted: Oct 27, 2005 12:52 PM

As a student, I have taken a few management classes so I have little to offer, but I wanted to add some thoughts from what my educational institution is teaching to its students.

Organizations today are trying to remove the “old style” of bureaucracy and with it, the hierarchical organizational structure. We have all heard of organizations downsizing in attempts to become more “flat” by removing middle management. I believe that organizations feel that this type of structure is more efficient. Decisions can be made quicker by the bottom echelon employees by bypassing the decision process of having to go through the chains of command. This fosters more empowerment. I’m not sure how well this works or not.

I’m not sure if there is any correlation here, but some businesses are moving towards a matrix style of organizational structure, such that an individual will report to a department head as well as perhaps a project manager or someone from another department working together on a cross-functional team.

This is from a classroom. What is the reality?

Regards,
Rob

Steven Prevette

Posts: 1,488

Re: organizational structure
Posted: Oct 27, 2005 3:28 PM

I am definitely one of those who operates in a matrix manner. This may or may not be what the "org chart" says, but this is what happens. I report to the Occupational Safety and Health group for purposes of catching staff meetings, getting the infamous annual performance appraisal, and also for getting paid. But, less than a quarter of my work goes to the group I work in. Anyone from the projects can request safety and health info, or any group with money in hand (a charge code that is) can request my statistical support. This includes now folks from outside the immediate geographical area - I now make charts for Fluor corporate and for a Fluor site in Ohio. I am pretty much left to fulfill the needs of my customers, and I rarely have to do much with my direct "chain of command" except when I need help for resources or intervention in a sticky situation.

Steve Prevette
Fluor Hanford

William Pflanz

Posts: 1,405

Re: organizational structure
Posted: Oct 27, 2005 3:54 PM

Your description of working relationships and Steve's response is an acknowledgement of how work gets done in spite of the hierarchy. I have experienced similar work atmospheres but the organizational structure remains as a pyramid with those at the top having the real power.

Removing middle management has little to do with making the organization more efficient. Middle management is expensive because of age and length of service in the company and a way to get rid of high costs. Due to the loss of knowledge and experience, removing them may even reduce productivity.

I think the reality is that it is either anecdotal or wishful thinking by academia that there is any real change in the way organizations operate.

Bill Pflanz

Bruce Waltuck

Re: organizational structure - 2d or 3d? Static or Dynamic?
Posted: Oct 27, 2005 7:28 PM

I appreciate everyone's comments on this topic. To those whose responses are about leadership, or the theories of academicians, I'd note that the question was about your own sense of what organizational form might work best. There was no implication intended, to say that one form of organizational structure is superior. Having said that, I certainly have my own opinions about organizational structure.

With regards to form and dynamics, I would ask if we

a) consider the form/structure to be essentially 2-dimensional, or if org structure can be multi-dimensional.

b) is the form of an organization always static, or can (or SHOULD) the form and structure be dynamic - responsive to the changing requirements of the business environment? If dynamic, then what would this look like?

Cheers,

Bruce

Richard Ickler

Posts: 624

Re: organizational structure
Posted: Oct 28, 2005 5:29 PM

> Hi all,
>
> the dominant model of organizational structure seems
> to still be based on a hierarchical, or "pyramid"
> shaped org chart. From the CEO or President at the
> top, down through some layers of management, in
> ever-increasing numbers until it reaches the bottom,
> or front-line workers.
>
> In your experience, is this the best way to organize
> humans to achieve some kind of work and business
> objectives? Why?
>
There is no "best" way to organize. Hierarchical or pyramid structures are by far the most common because it seems to be the easiest for people to understand and people feel comfortable in it even when they vehemently complain about people above or below them.

The reality is that even in the most rigid hierarchy there are many "undocumented" or "unacknowledged" exceptions to the hierarchy with real power flow often looking like a spaghetti chart. Also, it has been my experience that the top management can restructure the organization any way they want but what they want done only gets accomplished if the people actually doing the work want to do it or understand what is being asked of them.

> If not, what alternative organizational models can
> you suggest? What organizing principles are your
> alternative models based on? What are the presumed
> advantages of the alternative models?
>
>
> Thanks everyone,
>
> Bruce W