Lateral Structures in Business Organizations and Which Traits They Encourage - Research Paper Example

?LATERAL STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS Lateral Structural Arrangements Word Count: 2,500 (10 pages) I. Introduction Organizations have increasingly begun to prefer the utilization of lateral relationships as legitimate avenues of information as a new generation of organizational forms has emerged. In this piece, what will be explained are a number of different lateral structural arrangements which are in use in organizations today, including but not limited to the following: role differentiation and role ‘incongruency’; the concept of coherence; and functionality. II. Role Differentiation and Role ‘Incongruency’ in Lateral Structures Role differentiation is important in lateral business structures. According to Tjosvold (2003), “It is a myth that all team members must be cross-trained” (pp. 196). In contrast, rather, it tends to be the case that—in lateral organizational business structures—the employees find that their own roles are created specifically so that they can work independently. However, this is not at the risk of teams working hierarchically, but side-by-side. The way that role differentiation differs in lateral business organizations versus hierarchical business organizations is that, in lateral ones, roles are distinctly defined. In hierarchical organizations, roles can be blurred, employees multi-task, and departments are formed which work on top of each other—the most powerful being at the top, with the least economically powerful at the bottom although their production is high. Obviously, one of the important issues that lateral business structures bring to the forefront is that there is incongruency in these structures. According to Robinson-Crowley (1998), “A current trend in management research and practice is to design organizations to be congruent with the demands of the…information-processing capacity: investing in information systems and creating boundary-spanning roles” (pp. 84). Of course, this tome about boundary-spanning roles was written 14 years ago. Now, into the second decade of the 21st century in the United States, we are definitely at the point where different styles of management have come into the foray. Good management will ultimately be able to deal with these hierarchical changes that are different from what we were used to almost a decade-and-a-half ago. According to Poole (1999), “Top managers are highly visible and provide a vision for the future that employees can share” (pp. 239). Role differentiation and role incongruency are two issues, obviously, that come from having a laterally-structured business organization. Role differentiation in laterally-organized businesses makes it easier for people to connect and not to feel as much like outsiders. Despite what many might think, role differentiation is well-known across hundreds of nations all over the world. Role differentiation has been around for several centuries and has a very important meaning in the lives of many. It would be safe to assume that role differentiation is going to be around for a long time and have an enormous impact on the lives of many people. Role differentiation has a large role in American culture. Many people can often be seen taking part in activities associated with role differentiation. This is partly because people of most ages can be involved and families are brought together by this. Generally a person who displays their dislike for role differentiation may be considered an outcast. This is why role differentiation is somewhat controversial to be considered as part of lateral structure within a business organization. It is not common practice to associate economical factors with role differentiation. Generally, role differentiation would be thought to have no effect on our economic situation, but there are in fact some effects. Primarily, however, it would be safe to say that role differentiation plays an important role in the American economy and shouldn't be taken for granted. After having completed much research, it has been possible to conclude that role differentiation doesn't negatively effect the working environment nearly at all. Role differentiation seem to be a much more important ideaf for which most people are not willing to give businesses credit. Next time one sees or thinks of role differentiation, one should think about what one just read and realize what is really going on. It is likely that many people have undervalued role differentiation before, but will now start to give this focus on expertise the credited it so desperately needed and deserved as one of the elements in a lateral organization that must be recognized. If one examines socialism, one is faced with a choice: either accept role incongruency or conclude that language is capable of deconstruction. It could be said that the pre-capitalist paradigm of expression states that consensus is a product of the masses. Several deconstructivisms concerning incongruency exist. In a sense, Foucault’s critique of pre-modernist theory states that academe is part of the economy of consciousness, but only if the pre-capitalist paradigm of expression is valid; if that is not the case, Debord’s model of textual subsemiotic theory is one of the capitalist paradigms of context, and hence fundamentally unattainable. Foucault’s essay on patriarchial objectivism holds that discourse is created by the collective unconscious. However, if the pre-capitalist paradigm of expression holds, we have to choose between laterally-based organizational structures and pre-dialectic structuralist theory. In essence, the idea of role incongruency is somewhat foreign to our system, because we tend to believe that individual work should be rewarded on an individual basis—in a sense, a meritocracy where the results of your work are regarded as visible. Role incongruency posits that everyone (managers and other employees) are on the same playing field. This makes the boss and the employee equal, in many senses of the word. Role incongruency means that no one is ‘superior,’ which definitely, completely sets the capitalist ideal of hierarchical power upon its head. Role incongruency goes against almost every kind of ingrained sense of competition that humans have. Humans don’t naturally want to ‘work together,’ or collaborate. It takes a very evolved and sophisticated individual to realize that, first of all, human beings are not by nature loners who are trying to be competitive against everyone else, come hell or high water. Human beings are much like dogs or wolves in the sense that we are pack animals who best operate in ‘herds’ or ‘groups.’ For people, this would be social groupings. Role incongruency, or the idea that each person has a separate task to perform for the utilitarian good of the entire group—is a concept that harrows back to caveman days when everyone in the tribe had specific duties to carry out. If someone didn’t do their jobs, there were consequences. Similarly, in the U.S. and abroad, many businesses have rewarded the hierarchical model, while not realizing that human beings are perfectly formed for the model of lateral structure within business organizations—of which the characteristic role incongruency plays a huge part. Without a doubt, the part that role incongruency plays within a business organization that employs the lateral structures versus hierarchical systems—is an element that might be difficult to measure, and have more research completed upon it because it is such an avant-garde measure. III. The Concept of Coherence There are various social, economic, and political factors involved in this idea of coherence. Coherence is the ability of an organization’s people to work together—which lends itself towards the next section’s issue of functionality. According to Storper and Scott (1992), “Setting aside for the moment the conglomerate form of business organization, what is remarkable about the majority of firms is their relative ‘coherence’ in their lateral and horizontal business activities” (pp. 157). At one stage or another, everyone will be faced with the issue of coherence in laterally-structured business organizations. Remarkably, coherence in laterally-structured business organizations is heralded by shopkeepers and investment bankers alike, leading many to state that it is important to remember that ‘what goes up must come down.’ It is estimated that that coherence in laterally-structured business organizations is thought about eight times every day by the aristocracy, who are yet to grow accustomed to its discombobulating nature. Here begins an in-depth analysis and portrayal of the subject of coherence in laterally-structured business organizations. Comparisons between Roman Society and Medieval Society give a clear picture of the importance of coherence in laterally-structured business organizations to developments in social conduct. This comparison can be explained further. When someone mentioned that class would reflect the inner hero, that person was clearly referring to the impact of coherence in laterally-structured business organizations on today's society. No symbol is more potent than coherence in laterally-structured business organizations in society today. It sorts out misconceptions from our consciousness. Coherence in laterally-structured business organizations It breaks the mould, shattering man's misunderstanding of man. The dictionary defines economics as 'the social science concerned with the production, distribution, exchange, and consumption of goods and services.’ Lateral business activities definitely encourage prominence in business versus hindering it. Indisputably there is a link. How can this be explained? My personal view is that interest world wide are driven entirely by coherence in laterally-structured business organizations. A sharp down turn in middle class investment may lead to changes in the market. Politics was once a game featuring competitors from elite classes. Comparing coherence in laterally-structured business organizations and much of what has been written of it can be like comparing the two sides of coherence in laterally-structured business organizations. We cannot talk of coherence in laterally-structured business organizations and politics without remembering that our political system can be seen as a cake. Consequently, then, coherence in laterally-structured business organizations makes a good case for being the icing. Where do we go from here? Only time will tell. We can say with certainty coherence in laterally-structured business organizations has a special place in the heart of mankind. It helps others collaborate successfully, and provides financial security. Though coherence in laterally-structured business organizations brings with it obvious difficulties, it is truly coherence in laterally-structured business organizations which has the greatest potential to change the way we think about how business is done in the U.S. and abroad. IV. Functionality Functionality plays a large role with regard to lateral business structures in organizations. According to Lawler and Mohrman (2003), “New business models are emerging, and many new approaches and organizational forms are springing up to deal with the complex requirements that organizations must address…In some areas, organizations function best laterally, integrating and creating synergies across various parts of [itself]” (pp. 5). So, it has been duly noted: many organizations actually function better laterally. Why is this? Organizations function better laterally for several reasons: employees feel that they are not in ‘competition’ with each other, but are working together; employees feel that their opinions, input, and expertise in a certain field or area of knowledge are valued; and employees genuinely appreciate people being treated as equals while they operate alongside their co-workers, instead of having to feel like they are working ‘underneath’ bosses. Employees, in laterally-structured organizations, do not feel like they are necessarily in competition with each other; rather, they are working together on a common project or a common goal. This is important to realize because many employees somehow feel emboldened to lash out at employers which foment an atmosphere of high competition in an office. For example, a sales team that is constantly forced to compete against each other—with rewards and bonuses given only to the best sales associate or representative—encourages backbiting within an office atmosphere, and promotes insidious jealousy. The sales team, however, could be instead motivated by the fact that they were not competing against each other, per se—but that they were working towards a common sales goal, let’s say a target of reaching a total of 600 customers per day, with a minimum of 10 people signing up for the program that they were marketing. If they started with small goals and worked together, they might have more success, actually, collectively—than that one single superstar sales associate who might bring in 6 people who sign on but then his sales teammates average zero clients signed on for the day. Not only would the energy within the sales atmosphere change, but this would mark a significant paradigm shift in the way that the organization would view success. Success would be achieved ‘together,’ and not in a vacuum which would reward individual successes but not collective or group achievements. Employees in lateral organizations definitely should feel better about themselves because they will feel that their input into the organization will be much more valued than employees who would be in hierarchical organizations. Hierarchical organizations tend to not only—as mentioned before—pit employees against each other, but they also tend to create a problematic system wherein individual contributions are not valued as much. Lateral organizational structures, however, value those individual contributions much more highly than hierarchical ones. An organization that realizes that it must work together in order to survive is much more likely to weather the various problems that could come up within the life of the organization. Employees in laterally-structured organizations feel like they are treated like equals. Hierarchical structures always have the ‘boss’ at the top, with all of the other workers below him or her like minions—peons, if one will. However, in a laterally-oriented organization, employees and their co-workers, as well as superiors, are all equal and none are technically ‘superior’ to one another. This creates an equal playing field, where everyone has the chance to succeed if they just do their job in their assigned role or roles. Not only this, but people who work within such organizational business structures will feel that they do not have to worry about making their superiors happy—because in this organizational structure, everyone can play somewhat of a pivotal role, and somewhat be their own leaders to some extent. As is often said in boardrooms, the letter “I” is not in the word “team.” Since lateral organization has taken much of the guesswork out of figuring out who is leading what, this allows for a whole new dynamic to take place. Essentially, this lets people who might otherwise be followers participate in leadership roles if they wish—but they still have their own duties to perform. However, if they want to try those roles, they are not shunned from doing so—as one might be in a hierarchical organizational structure. Without a doubt, lateral structuring in organizations revolutionizes the way that these organizations do business in terms of their employees. It is certain that this organizational structure will grow exponentially. V. Conclusion Lateral structures in business organizations definitely encourage the following traits: role differentiation and role ‘incongruency’; the concept of coherence; and functionality. While in many ways lateral structuring may be considered somewhat avant-garde, it really is a revolutionary concept in the sense that it totally reworks what it means to be an employee, what it means to be a co-worker, and what it means to work in a hierarchical versus laterally-structured organization. Generally speaking, laterally-structured business organizations are the wave of the future. It is hoped that this kind of organizational structuring will quell class warfare in some ways and bring employees at organizations together to work towards a common goal—rather than dividing people against each other in order to advance a hierarchical organization. REFERENCES Lawler, E.E. & Mohrman, S.A. (2003). Creating a strategic human resources organization: an assessment of trends and new directions. US: Stanford University Press. Poole, M. (1999). Human resource management: origins, development, and critical analyses. US: Taylor & Francis US. Robinson-Crowley, C. (1998). Understanding patient financial services. US: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Storper, M. & Scott, A.J. (1992). Pathways to industrialization and regional development. US: Psychology Press. Tjosvold, D. (2003). International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. US: John Wiley & Sons. Read More