Rol Fessenden wrote:
> But the changes he describes in status, hierarchy, and communications
> structures are exactly the kinds of difficult changes I am referring to.
> Furthermore, those changes would improve the functioning of _any_
> organization, not just flat ones. As far as I can tell, there is nothing
> in his assertions that proves the _inherent_ value of flat organizations.
You are absolutely correct in my mind. Flattening an
organization that had historically been tall hierarchically without
other appropriate interventions would create chaos. In fact, almost any
intervention creates turbulence in the organization and reduces
efficiency in the short term. Certainly any tampering with the structure
would create turbulence that would affect the bottom line.
My contention is simply that tall hierarchical organizational
structures work against efforts to glean information from all levels of
an organization. In other words, a tall hierarchical structure
diminishes the impact of _any_ intervention at operational and process
levels.
Flatter organizations are useful because the flatness of the
hierarchy diminishes the status and stature issues that plague tall
bureaucracies.
Peter Block in the "Empowered Manager" talks about hierarchy
issues relative paternal organizations (bureaucracies) versus
entrepreneurial organizations.
> My concern with being precise here is that there is too much focus on the
> 'glib fix' at the expense of the thoughtful assessment that might result
> in _substantive_ change.
If I offered a quick fix, I apologize. Any intervention in the
culture is a serious issue that must be considered at length. Please
excuse my enthusiasm for techniques that might have worked for me.
-- @__Roy_J._Winkler,_AAS,_BSM... @__Consultant/Facilitator/Trainer__UAW-GM @__Organization/Human-Resource_Development @__Anderson,_Indiana,__USA__ rwinkler@iquest.net