Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
I think that while it would work, it can also be achieved through communication between the lower and upper classes of a business that operates on hierarchy. The increase in communication can really ease the friction of mobility to the top (or to the bottom). With this, it is important for the higher ups to not only be hearing the ideas of the lower ranks, but that they listen to them as well. It allows for people to be more happy about their work conditions, which increases their productivity since that would likely be the key subject of their thoughts on the company, which benefits the company. It also deconstructs the echo chamber that a lot of people at the top might find themselves in, although that might not apply to companies with very narrow typecasting hiring policies.
|
I'm with you on your points 100%, Frown. And many examples of flat-ter hierarchies (e.g. tiers of management each directing their own branch of cooperative/collectives) are able to support each of the benefits you've cited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
The hierarchy or tall organization seems more efficient. On average any one person has to deal with 3.6 people. The round table the average a person has to deal with seven people, and the round table has two less people than in the tall organization. With the flat organization you have to deal with more people and coordinate your actions with everyone. If there are ten people in your group you increase who you have to report to from one person to nine people. You'll have nine bosses. One day you'll find out you are doing 80% of the work will all the other are doing 20% and you'll resent it. Going in you thought everyone is equal and everything is done equally. And one day when you go into work, and look around at your flat organization, you'll realize that is not the case. Pareto principle will bitch slap you in the face and you'll hate your life and hate your job and resent all the rest because the amount of effort you put into it.
|
You've identified several of the caviets of flat organizations (and there are just as many for its taller alternative),though I believe a few of your concerns are simply semantics focused upon two literal but incongruent scenarios of particular numbers of staff. Those aside, both tall and flat management systems have their respective
advantages and disadvantages, and neither are remotely utopian. Flat systems tend to work better for smaller organizations where micromanagement is a major hindrance to productivity. I'm just interested in exploring it as the minority exception to the management status quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob_32_116
If you want a true productive round table discussion, as suggested in the illustration above, I'd suggest the first thing to do is ban laptops and mobile phones from the room, and force people to actually talk and to look at each other as they talk. Maybe let them have a pen and paper if anyone wants/needs to take notes on what was discussed.
|
Yes Bob, the internet is a fantastic distraction in the workplace. But I'd wager that a large percentage of organizations effectively implementing flat management systems are tech-focused companies or at least those who've embraced the power of cloud CRMs, web-based lead generation, and networking. For a business to "put away" the most powerful information resource the world has ever known and to conduct their business "unplugged" would be a far greater upset to their effectiveness than the minutes they'd save over staff members checking their FB updates.
---
Once again, loving everyone's input. My particular corner of the planet is sorely lacking in critical discussion and I'm really digging what all of you have to say.