|
09-11-2009, 05:37 AM
|
| | | Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Woodinville, WA |
|
| The less-hierarchy/flat and the full-blown hierarchy are two different forms of organizational structures. Flat is where the organization has less number of levels, increased individual responsibility and participation in the decision-making process etc. Hierarchy defines and focuses on maintaining those levels. Flat organization is good for smaller/growing companies, but as the company/organization grows, it will severely impact the productivity of the company/individuals. To remain flat, they would have to establish hierarchy at a higher level, while the flatness remains intact at a lower/smaller unit level (e.g. a manger with 5 to 10 direct reports can remain flat within his/her direct reports, but not a VP with 1000 direct reports, or even a manager with 50-100 direct reports – highly inefficient). I hope to believe that you were referring to Matrix Organization rather than strictly flat organization that the world is moving to. Therefore, while I believe hierarchy must be clearly defined/established as the organization grows, I also believe that the benefits of various organizational structures may be achieved by fostering the required “culture organization”, rather than defining one type of organization or the other, and sticking to it. So, how do we marry these three structures (Hierarchy, Flat, and Matrix) together and reap benefits? A large company may choose to organize their workforce into matrix – based on the functional domains (all engineers/developers grouped in one org, all analysts grouped in another, test/QA in a third, project management in a fourth and so on). Within each of these functional matrix components, the company may choose to establish hierarchy by defining various and as many/few levels as required to be productive/efficient. Further, individual managers may choose to keep their direct-reporting organization flat, by involving all of their direct reports in the decision-making process for decisions that impact them. While the org chart I attached earlier refers to one such large organizations/companies (10,000+), it refers to a matrix organizational structure, and the flatness may be achieved starting at the lowest managerial level (where the manager has all individual contributors), such as Senior Managers in various organization. Going up the hierarchy, such flatness may be achieved by each manager/Director/VP by keeping his/her direct reports flat and encouraging them to maintain their direct reports flat as well. Such hybrid organizations (where multiple org structures merge to make a better org) are also known as Composit Structures. Are hierarchical and flat organizations mutually exclusive? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how a company implements their organization. I hope this answers your questions. Let me know if it does not, and I can further explain it with an example. Regards, -Som G Quote:
Originally Posted by HRMFUSR  Som G,
The presentation on organization chart provided by you is really useful. But how does
this fit into current trend / need to keep organizations hierarchy-less and flat?
Are need for hierarchy and trend towards flat structure mutually opposing needs?
How do organizations maintain a hierarchy and still derive benefits of a flat structure?
Thanks for responses.
HRMFUSR |  |
