Hierarchy vs Heterarchy in Organizational Structures - Research Paper Example

Hierarchy versus heterarchy in organization structures Introduction The organization structures established in different organizations across the globe is meant to improve performance and the needs of the employees. In the business world today, two relevant organizational structures are in use and this includes hierarchical and heterarchical structures. Depending on the nature of the organization, either of the structures can be considered for use to help an organization achieve its goal as a business entity. The proponents of hierarchy structure argue that authority is critical in any form of organization. This involves centralizing authority that controls the operations of an organization. Conversely, a heterarchical structure supports autonomy of the workers from the various departments of an organization. In essence, this structure advocates for a horizontal management of the affairs of an organization as opposed to a vertical management embraced by a hierarchical organizational structure. The management of an organization can take either a centralized control of operations or a decentralized control of operations. Depending on the structure that an organization adopts, both structures have their merits and demerits in terms of improving the operations of an organization. In some organizations, the management often prefers controlling every aspect of operations under their supervision. This calls for a situation where employees work according to the management’s preference. On the other hand, there are organizations that prefer giving employees space to undertake their own initiatives within the work environment so long as these initiatives can improve the organization’s performance (Diefenbach and Sillince 1518). In this paper, I will examine the debate that surrounds hierarchy versus heterarchy in organizational structures and their successes and limitations in an organization’s setting. Having a command center in any organization is essential because, those under the top management work according to orders from the management. This is a key feature of organizations based on a hierarchy structure. Organizations operating in this line often embrace a vertical line of authority where there are levels and each level has an authority figure. In essence, this involves embracing an office cadre where authority starts with CEO moving to the bottom level of the organization. At each level, there is an authority figure with employees under him or her. This organization helps to simplify the chain of command, but the overall authority lies with the CEO of the organization. Efficiency in an organization relying on a hierarchical structure depends on supervising those working under a middle manager. This manager on his or her part, is supervised by the top management of an organization (Leavitt 98). Many organizations prefer this structure because it provides them with a way of knowing what is going on within the departments of the organizations. Since the top management are charged with the responsibility of managing the entire organization, decision making is made easier through a hierarchical structure. This is because the middle managers are mandated to give report regarding the departments they are managing to the top management. As such, the top management rely on this report to make organizational decisions. This structure is preferable for most organizations in the sense that there are no conflict of interest since decisions of the organization comes from a central point. A centralized operation as envisaged in a hierarchical organizational structure creates an environment where authority and the responsibility of every employee is clearly defined. This help to avoid instances where staff members of an organization jostle for positions since there is a clear promotion path (Leavitt 101). On another note, a hierarchical organizational structure ensures that clear communication lines are in place. It is important for organizations to develop clear communication lines to avoid confusion or duplication of roles. Where the communications lines are clearly defined, every person in the organization knows where to report and get information or directives. In this light, unity in most departments is enhanced because proper channels of communication contribute to a well-coordinated work environment. In addition, this structure allows the management to account for resources used by every department. This is because the middle managers are tasked with providing the top management with updated reports regard the utilization of resources within the organization. The proponents of hierarchical organizational structure further concur that, this structures is suitable when arranging employees concerning their roles in the organization. This often motivates employees to improve their performance because they are tasked with responsibility that commensurate with their skills. Further, in such an organizational structure, the opportunity for promotion is possible for employees whose performances are exceptional. Specialization among employees is also possible through a hierarchical structure. This is because hierarchical structure plays a role in narrowing the employee’s focus on the assigned task. The different departments on the other hand, also work to meet the common goal of the organization. Loyalty among employees in each department is also enhanced through a hierarchical structure (Leavitt 102). Working in the same section often lead to strengthening of working alliances within the departments. Further, the strategic plans of the organizations in a hierarchical structure are often defined by the top management and adopted by the various departments in an organization. This results in a situation where each department works hard to implement the ideas defined by the top management. In an environment where there is a good working relation, the departmental staff in various sections of an organization often makes it easier in terms of improving on ideas proposed by the top management. Furthermore, the functions within a hierarchical structure are logically presented which ensures that each employee understands his or her role within the organization. The logical presentation of functions for employees of an organization also assists in enhancing performance. For most organizations across the world, managing operations from a central point is important because, it enables the owners or top management to have a direct control of affairs of the organizations they run. In essence, this structure gives the top management the opportunity to use their vast skills in improving the performance of their organizations. The top management also has a chance to directly interact with employees from various departments and listen to their needs and contribution on how to improve performance. This is important in a hierarchical organizational structure because the employees see the top management as the ultimate authority in the organization and their decision holds weight in boosting the morale of employees (Bisel, Messersmith and Kelly 129). Arguments against hierarchical organizational structure emerge from the notion that this structure is rigid in a rapidly changing business environment. Hierarchical structure, is often seen as being slow in implementing changes. Organizations relying on this structure, are notorious for creating bureaucracy that prevents change. In addition, leadership based on hierarchical structure is often autocratic. It creates a situation where the departmental heads tend to be dictators over their subordinate staff. Decision making in this organizational structure is further slowed down because of an emphasis on a strict line of command. This line of command is meant to provide the management with a measure of control and to create specialization in each department. However, this may affect negatively on flexibility and innovation in the various departments of an organization. Because, decision-making is a preserve of the top management, this can result communication breakdown. It is important that the decisions made in an organization should involve all the employees. This plays an important role in preventing chaos when implementing change in an organization. Resistance to change often result from lack of consultation with other people affected by the change (Tianyuan and Nengquan 142). As such, a hierarchical structure makes it hard for other employees to get involved in the decision making process. In addition, not involving other employees in the decision making process may result in failure with newly implemented changes in an organization. The employees may be uncomfortable with a change that they are not familiar with in an organization. Because of dissatisfaction, some employees may leave their work or exhibit a low morale at work place (Tianyuan and Nengquan 143). A hierarchical organizational structure also discourages innovation in the sense that, it does not embrace teamwork. Most employees work best in groups, which also plays a role in improving their creativeness. However, a hierarchical structure deters employees from working as a group because the departmental heads who also supervise the work specifically delegate their work. As such, an employee’s freedom is restricted to the delegated work with no room to consult with other employees. Where the departmental heads closely supervise work probably, employees are often frustrated because they are not given freedom to work independently of their supervisors. While specialization is important in large organizations, giving employees space to work without close supervision play a role in enhancing creativity and innovation. Organizations with strict supervision often experiences problems during the change management process. This is because they do not take time to understand the needs of employees, which in turn, affects job satisfaction. Relying on hierarchical structure also has a limitation in the sense that an organization can lose its competitive advantage. This is because, the management may take time responding to changes in the business environment. In a hierarchical organizational structure, the management tends to spend considerable time in board meetings to make decisions that affects the operations of an organization. The time wasted in implementing new changes is disadvantageous for organizations relying on hierarchical structures since changes in the business environment occur rapidly (Tianyuan and Nengquan 145). In today’s business environment, organizations need to respond fast to changes taking place. This helps organizations to avoid losing profits because of relying on an outdated strategy for their business. A hierarchical organizational structure can also lead to disunity in the sense that it does not promote interdepartmental working relationships. Performance of any organization often improves because of departments complementing each other. However, a hierarchical structure can lead to a situation where the departments tend to outperform each other. On the same note, there is a tendency among departmental heads to compete with each other in order to look better in the eyes of the top management. Such competition affects the general performance of an organization because of inflexibility in terms of departments helping each other (Koh 207). In a hierarchical organizational structure, the voice of the employee is often suppressed. This is because, employees work under supervision of someone who is also under someone else. As such, there is no clear direction concerning where employees can raise their concerns. Employees may raise their concerns to the departmental head, but this may not reach the top management. This further adds to the frustration of employees because of the bureaucracy created by a hierarchical structure. For example, a departmental head may ignore reporting the concerns raised by other employees to the top management for his or her personal reasons. This structure tends to create a work environment where the departmental heads abuse their authority. It is a common occurrence in organizations using this structure to find departmental heads exploiting employees working under them for their own gain. For example, a departmental head may favor some workers while others are overburdened with work. In addition, the departmental heads also have a tendency of threatening other workers because of a belief that they hold power and can do what they want with other employees. Because of an emphasis on vertical authority, employees are not able to raise their concerns or such abuse with the top authority or management. This is a gap that hierarchical structure creates in the sense that, the top management lack awareness of how the departmental heads treat other employees. As a result, employee’s performance at work is affected and in some instances, the bureaucratic nature of a hierarchical organizational structure often results in high employee turnover (Koh 214). A classic example of an organization using hierarchical structure is government ministries or departments where the chain of command is clearly defined from the top level to the bottom level. However, it is a common occurrence within government departments to find that the decision making process is slow. This is because; such decisions take time to reach other workers who rely specifically on decision made by the higher authority. An employee ranked cannot take any initiative lower before approval from those ranked higher. As a result, most government departments often experience failure with projects they implement because of their bureaucratic nature (Gavetti 608). Conversely, a heterarchical organizational structure seems fluid compared to a hierarchical structure. This is because of embracing a management structure that is horizontal compared to hierarchical structure that emphasizes a vertical approach. In a heterarchical organizational structure, employees have space to work independently without close supervision from the top management or departmental heads. This is because, this structure lays an emphasis on teamwork and as a result, organizations using this structure often achieve success. This success comes from the idea of allowing employees to make their own decision concerning improving work performance. As a result, there is more creativity and innovation within a heterarchical organizational structure. The morale of employees often depend on how they are treated at work place. Most employees tend to be rigid where they are closely supervised; however, giving employees more freedom serve to boost their morale and in turn, improve an organization’s performance (Frew 11). A heterarchical structure creates a work environment that allows employees to work in groups. As a result, an organization can achieve success where employees work as a group rather than an emphasis on individual work. Further, this structure is suitable for most organization in the sense that it makes employees to feel as part of an organization. This is because, employers or the top management allow employees to take part in the decision making process within the organization. On the same note, allowing employees to take part in the decision-making process plays a role in avoiding chaos in times of implementing organizational change. This is because, employees are aware of such changes as a result of being involved in the process of implementing organizational change. In addition, this organizational structure also enhances communication in the sense that employees work in groups where the working relationship is improved through consulting with each other. In essence, there is no rigidity since an employee can ask for assistance from another employee from the same group. It is hard to find that employees are frustrated with their work in a heterarchical organizational structure because employees share responsibility and authority. Furthermore, there is no complexity in terms of decision making since decisions are made within the group settings. On another note, leadership and authority within a heterarchical organization places emphasis on democracy. Each employee has an equal voice in terms of contributing towards the success of an organization. This structure mainly focuses on knowledge and functions rather than supervising the work done by employees. In addition, a heterarchical structure places the skills of employees first rather than focusing on controlling what the employees are doing. This involves allowing employees to engage in independent operations meant to improve the performance of the organization. In essence, employers or top management does not check the work of employees often. This allows employees to be more creative since what they do is their own initiative and not a task given by their supervisors or the management (Stephenson 5). When employees work as a group and there is autonomy, flexibility exists since employees adapt rapidly to any change in the organization. This is because, they do not have to wait for their employers or the top management to make decisions that guide their work. Many organizations relying on heterarchical structure are successful because there is tolerance for fault. This allows employees to learn from their mistakes and change for the best. There is also a low turnover in organizations using heterarchical structure because employees are made to feel as part of the organizations. An organization can maintain skilled and experienced employees by giving them autonomy at work place. Most workers are motivated to work hard if they are given space and not controlled exceedingly by their supervisors or the management. On another note, a heterarchical structure is important in enhancing worker engagement by allowing employees to participate in the decision making process. Further, because of globalization, the business environment is changing rapidly and thus; the need of a more creative and innovative pool of workers. The competitiveness of an organization at present depends on adapting to new changes. This is possible with heterarchical structure because it lays emphasis on knowledge and functions that give employees an opportunity to show case their talent (Maccoby 46). However, while a heterarchical structure plays a role in enabling employees to work as a group and participate in decision-making process, it also has some notable limitations. Such shortfall emanate from the management lacking control of the organization. The idea of giving employees freedom to manage their work environment leads to a situation where there is lack of a chain of command within the organization. This is because employees work in groups without supervision, probably from the section heads. In addition, where employees have too much freedom, chances are high that they might overstep their mandate in an organization. Roles are not also clearly defined and employees work according to an environment that they deem fit and not according to the management’s wishes. This may also create a situation where there is insubordination (Sanchez-Bueno and Suarez-Gonzalez 343). Further, employees may not be comfortable working with rules and rules are important in any work environment to avoid deviation from the acceptable norms. Working in groups is a reason for concern especially where there are various groups working on the same project. This can turn into rivalry where each group tries to outperform one another rather than laying emphasis on cooperation. A heterarchical structure can also lead to redundancy where employees engage in tasks that are not related with the organization’s objectives. This structure further creates a situation where employees can exploit the management because of a submissive leadership. Such exploitation emerges in terms of employees asking for more benefits from their employers, which in some instances, is not warranted. Employees may expect rewards for every project successfully completed and this amounts to holding the management at ransom (Chakravarthy and Henderson 642). For example where heterarchical structure can be used involve organizations that deal in technology or research and development. This is because these are fields where changes takes place every day and there is need for flexibility to adapt to new changes. Further, organizations dealing for example in technology require employees who are creative and innovative. This is because technology change from time to time and as such, a quick response time is important to help organizations to remain in business. For example, in a company such as Apple, a heterarchical structure is important because, employees need more space to exploit their skills. This is only possible if the management allows workers to engage in independent operations such as coming up with new application software meant to improve usability of their technology by clients across the globe. Further, because of globalization, organizations now compete with other firms producing similar products. As a result, achieving a competitive edge require organizations to be creative and innovative. This is realizable when organizations rely on heterarchical structure because it lays a focus on group work. In essence, group work is important in improving performance because employees can share ideas in achieving success with projects (Dawson 13). In conclusion, the debate concerning hierarchical versus heterachical arises because of a constantly changing business environment that need a new model in running organizations. While hierarchical structure tends to control the work done by employees, the heterachical structure focuses on group work and provides more autonomy for workers. In essence, autonomy for workers is important in terms of improving employee’s creativity and innovation. This is what is needed in a business environment that continues to change because of globalization. It allows organizations to remain competitive in the business world. Works Cited Bisel, Ryan; Messersmith, Amber and Kelley, Katherine. Supervisor-Subordinate Communication: Hierarchical Mum Effect Meets Organizational Learning. Journal of Business Communication 49.2 (2012): pp. 128-147.Print. Chakravarthy, Bala and Henderson, James. From a hierarchy to a heterarchy of strategies: adapting to a changing context. Management Decision 45.3 (2007): p.642.Print. Diefenbach, Thomas and Sillince, John. Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization. Organization Studies 32.11 (2011): pp. 1515-1537.Print. Dawson, Ross. Heterarchy: Technology, Trust and Culture. People and Strategy 32.1 (2009): p.13.Print. Frew, Barry. Valuing Heterarchy in the Public Sector. People and Strategy 32.1 (2009):pp. 11- 12.Print. Gavetti, Giovanni. Cognition and Hierarchy: Rethinking the Microfoundations of Capabilities Development Organization Science 16.6 (2005): pp. 599-617.Print. Koh, Winston. The optimal design of fallible organizations: invariance of optimal decision criterion and uniqueness of hierarchy and polyarchy structures. Social Choice & Welfare 25.1 (2005): pp. 207-220.Print. Leavitt, Harold. Why Hierarchies Thrive. Harvard Business Review 81.3 (2003):pp. 96- 102. Print. Maccoby, Michael. Move from Hierarchy to Heterarchy. Research Technology Management 34.5 (1991): p.46.Print. Sanchez-Bueno, Maria and Suarez-Gonzalez, Isabel. Towards new organizational forms. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 18.3 (2010): pp.340-357.Print. Stephenson, Karen. Neither Hierarchy nor Network: An Argument for Heterarchy. People and Strategy 32.1 (2009):pp. 4-7.Print. Tianyuan, Yu and and Nengquan, Wu. Bureaucratic Hierarchy vs. Feudal Hierarchy: A Study on the Organizational Culture of Chinas SOEs. International Journal of Business and Management 6.2 (2011): pp.139-146.Print. Read More