The Assumptions Made by Hierarchism - Coursework Example

Hierarchism Name A Report Submitted Professor’s Name Course Name Date: Hierarchism assumes that to act together successfully in the world necessarily entails a hierarchy of command, centralized control and the institutionalization Hierarchism is a belief and an assumption that effective leadership requires centralized control, hierarchy of command and institutionalization of roles of leadership and expertise (Baker, 2002, p. 111). This form of leadership has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantages do not mean that the form of leadership is the most preferred. The advantages include the fact that employees become loyal to their departments hence they look out for the best interests of that department. It promotes developing employees as specialists. Employees are given the opportunity to narrow their field of focus. This means that they become experts in their specific functions. The opportunities available for promotion motivate employees making them work harder. Employees also recognize the presence of defined levels of leadership, authority and levels of responsibility. I do not agree with the assumptions made by hierarchism. The reason here being this form of leadership has its disadvantages too, which has led to criticisms by some scholars. In addition, other forms of leadership are much better than the hierarchism structure. The disadvantages include the fact that increased bureaucracy hinders the speed of change for an organization. In other words, it is rigid. Communication across the available departments is less effective than in other forms of leadership. There can be rivalry between departments making decision making extremely difficult. Organizational costs are increased because of salaries for multiple layers of management. A hierarchical organization is a structure where all entities except one are subordinates to one other entity. The arrangement is a type of hierarchy. There is usually a single source of power at the top and lower levels beneath it. The form of leadership is particularly common in large organizations such as governments, corporations and organized religions. Hierarchies have been subjected to all forms of criticisms. This is despite the fact that many organizations view as a means to achieving success. Some organizations also view it as being beneficial since control is centralized and command comes from a single point. Every leader has a clear as well as unambiguous span of control. This means that differentiation and a set of obligations are created with the worker as the hand and the manager as the brain (Klenke, 2006, p. 1). The form of control that is exercised is a dictatorial top-down and command-control style of leadership. The typical notion of hierarchism is that of a single individual who is the arbiter of purpose and decisions and around whom the rest of the group circles lie. Throughout history, there have been cases of celebrated souls (Day & Antonakis, 2011, p. 364). The souls are celebrated for better or for worse. Modern leaders who still follow the hierarchical form of leadership aspire to be like the celebrated souls. Their focus is the behaviors, attitudes and activities of the previous leaders with the hope of demystifying, understanding and even emulating them. Scholars have begun a campaign stating that leadership should be shared. Management or Leadership does not have to originate solely from one person. Rather, it can derive from any member of the group who can offer the talent and skills needed for the achievement of goals. The assumption made by hierarchism is sometimes not applicable. This is because of the sheer sizes of the hierarchies in large and complex organizations. This is coupled with the distance of the top management from the market. The above makes the type of structure to be remarkably unresponsive despite the assumptions. The tyranny of status driven boundaries, lack of flexibility and a chain of command mentality makes the organization using the type of structure a poor candidate for survival (Klenke, 2006, p. 2). This is especially due to the fact that the world is changing rapidly. Surgery is required to reconstruct such organizations if they want to achieve a competitive advantage like its competitors. Despite the assumptions made by hierarchism, it has become clear that hierarchies do not provide optimum structures for the creation of knowledge. Instead, organizations that are collaborative and inter- dependent are likely to be the enabling contexts that are needed, for knowledge creation to occur. The collaborative enterprise sustains two sets of relationships. The relationships include the horizontal and vertical (Leithwood, 2008, p. 254). This will mean that the organization will be one where quality of leadership practice matters more that leadership positions and roles. Leadership should be responsive and flexible and should be able to realign itself to the everchanging environment. The hierarchical structures will fall away leaving distributive leadership to play a crucial role. This is because organizations need to realize that consumer and market conditions are ever changing hence they need a management style that benefits them. Other forms of leadership practices have emerged. They are based on relationships rather than organizational boundaries and divisions (Leithwood, 2008, p. 254). Relationships are often at the heart of knowledge creation. They are made possible through a form of leadership that is not rigid and unresponsive. Leadership should be shared and not only from a single point. This occurs when employees together with the top management actively shift roles as needed by circumstances or environment in which the organizations operate (Day & Antonakis, 2011, p. 364). Leadership does not dwell in the hands of one individual, but in the arms of the group as they all move towards common goals and objectives. Dialogue between the top management and employees is essential. This is because they are able to discover from each other and attain a widespread perceptive. Dialogue enables problems to be defined and informed decisions made (Maltbia & Power, 2012). Dialogue gives birth to discussions where people from different levels of departments and with different expertise give their take on certain issues. Hierarchism is a bureaucratic mechanism where all action is carried out in a systematic manner. There is centralization of control functions, and a chain of command that emanates from the center. Employees and workers from the subsequent levels obey a hierarchical set of constraints (Laszlo, 1972, p. 113). This means that they are not given a chance to express their opinions. They are not included in any decision making process and as a result, are left out of the crucial decisions being taken by the organization. Organizations that use other forms of leadership other than the hierarchical type have realized the benefits. That is why the assumptions made by hierarchism are baseless. It is not that the other forms of leaderships do not have flaws but the benefits are always much more than the flaws. The positive side of shared or participatory leadership is the fact that visions are shared (Meuleman & Veld, 2009, p. 70). This means that everyone knows the main objective and goal and hence strives to achieve it. There are possibilities for consensus meaning that issues are dealt with in a collective manner. Trustworthy leadership is necessary to building trustworthy organizations. The main goal of leadership in high-performing organizations is to build self-leadership and reduce subordinate dependency among teams and individual employees (Denhardt, 2010, p. 188). I continue to disagree with the assumptions made by hierarchism because of the emergence of other forms of management and team leadership. Multiple members of a team can be assigned the role management even in the presence of leader who is formally designated. Shared management and team leadership is dynamic and has an interactive influence among the employees (Klein, Ziegert, Knight & Xiao, 2006, p. 4). This is all with the objective of leading one another to the attainment of group goals. The management of any organization should employ a form of management that is flexible. This means that times are rapidly changing; hence, management should be responsive, flexible and adaptive. An organization that depends on some level for decisions will make the whole process of work very rigid and slow. This is because the subordinates always have to wait for directions from the top management. Flexibility here means behavioral as well as social flexibility. Every member of a team should be willing to change for the benefit of the organization. They should not consider their interests and put them at the forefront at the expense of their organization. It also means that the management is able to respond to a wide range of situations that may need opposing and contrary behaviors (Klein, Ziegert, Knight & Xiao, 2006, p. 4). They are able to balance competing demands and also reconcile the differences that may arise from the workers. Hierarchism does not provide for this in that managers at the top level of management may not even be aware of the demands of its workers. The reason here being the fact that they do not interact with the employees in the subsequent levels. Flexible forms of management enable managers to respond to their teams’ changing composition and task conditions. Hierarchism does not provide a chance for people to work together. People or employees in any organization should work together in a way to pool their expertise and initiatives. The outcome of this will be a product or energy that is greater than any individual action. Shared management opens the boundaries of management and leadership (Bennett, Wise, Woods & Harvey, 2003, p. 8). The roles of employees should be considered in relation to management. It allows varieties of expertise to be distributed across the many, not the few in the organization. Initiatives are thought out, adopted and improved within a mutually supportive and trusting culture. Shared or distributed management gives employees some degree of autonomy unlike the hierarchical form of management. Autonomy is given to everyone in a way to contribute to the management of the organization (Bennett, Wise, Woods & Harvey, 2003, p. 9). Workers are given a chance to make decisions. This means that employees are trusted enough to make sound decisions that see the achievement of organizational goals and objectives. Such forms of management encourage the rise of change. It provides a means to rethink leadership of the organization. The result would be the possibility of structural reorganization. The changes should be made through the contribution of every member of the group. Through this, changes are easily introduced and implemented without any resistance. Conclusion The essay sought to provide reasons as to why I do not agree with the assumptions of hierarchism. The reason for the disagreement is because of the ever-changing environment, which requires that organizations seek forms of management that are flexible and responsive. Organizations need to realize that human resource is very important for any organization to keep running. It is for this reason that management should continually interact with the employees. They should be involved in all activities taking place including decision-making, restructuring and implementation of any changes. It is therefore, useful for organizations to change the way they conduct their management styles. This will enable them achieve a competitive advantage in the very competitive environment. References List Baker, G. 2002. Civil society and democratic theory: international perspectives. New York: Routledge. Bennett, N, Wise, C, Woods, P & Harvey, J. 2003. Distributed Leadership: A Review of Literature. National College for School Leadership. Day, D & Antonakis, J. 2011. The nature of leadership. London: Sage. Denhardt, R. 2010. Theories of public organization. New York: Cengage Learning. Klein, K, Ziegert, J, Knight, A & Xiao, Y. 2006. Dynamic Delegation: Shared, Hierarchical, and De-individualized Leadership in Extreme Action Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51 (2006): 590–621. Klenke, K. 2006. Keeping Control in Nonhierarchical Organisations, Business: The Ultimate Resource, 2nd Edition, 2006, pgs.231-232. Laszlo, E. 1972. Introduction to systems philosophy: Toward a new paradigm of contemporary thought. New York: Taylor & Francis. Leithwood, K. 2008. Distributed leadership according to the evidence. New York: Taylor and Francis. Maltbia, T & Power, A. 2012. A leader’s guide to leveraging diversity. New York: Routledge. Meuleman, A & Veld, R. 2009. Sustainable development and the governance of long-term decisions. RMNO. Read More