Give Me a TWO Page summary with references

(Disagrees with the topic)

The Debate Topic: "Conventional Organizations are Passe in the Twenty-first Century"

For centuries, the conventional organizational structure was used to establish hierarchical control. The Greek, then Roman Empire, developed a hierarchical military model employed to reinforce chain of command. It persists as the dominant structure in modern militaries and many organizations today. During the 20thcentury, two World Wars influenced consecutive generations of individuals entering the work force. The industrial age was fortified by military leadership training; a top-down hierarchical methodology (Kenton 2022). This hierarchical model is better known today as the conventional (vertical) organizational structure. Decision making authority is centralized and concentrated at the top levels of management (Draft, 2018). Responsibilities are clearly delineated, and subordinates adopt the guidance of their superiors (Kenton 2022).

The command/control style of leadership worked well in the industrial age due to little need for information free flow and rigid repetitive responsibilities; however, the past 30 years digital revolution with proliferation of technology, innovation and remote operations necessitate information sharing in a globalized society. Vertical organizational structures impede movement through departmental barriers and managerial bureaucracy. Modern approaches to organizational structure support information sharing, flexibility and adaptability to maintain competitive advantage in highly globalized and rapidly changing modern markets (Kenton 2022).

A hallmark of the modern horizontal work environment is decentralized authority and reduction in middle management. Leaders must share and develop knowledge and talent of employees, shifting from rigid to permeable structures that facilitate innovation and idea generation across organizational boundaries unencumbered by bureaucracy (Kelly 2013).This fluid interaction and overlap are characteristic of 21thcentury horizontal models (Kelly, 2013).

Despite a push towards more horizontal structures, the new systems do not come without their own flaws. Namely, arguments against the horizontal structure are no clear line of authority, ambiguity regarding responsibility and decision-making, a lack of accountability, and the inability to support growth (Joseph, 2019). New structures have only minimal upper management and employees manage themselves. Horizontal structures allow for empowerment of employees, who remain on track with projects and take accountability for their work (Joseph, 2019). With a horizontal structure, employees are free to make decisions quickly and effectively to yield the best results on projects and with new challenges (Lefebvre, 2018). Flatter structures allow companies to work with leaders and leadership as opposed to traditional controlling and management (Gleeson, 2017). With leadership, employees take responsibility and accountability for their work because the leaders encourage innovation and creativity. Though the new age of organizations lacks the rigid structure of before, this does not hinder them from growth. With proper leadership, empowerment, and planning, organizations can continue to expand as they have in the past.

A new way of running a company that has popped up in the last couple of years is that of a boss-less structure. In the traditional system, it is top-heavy with management which makes the system both cumbersome and costly upwards of 33% of payroll (Hamel, 2011). Another problem with the traditional way is that decisions are made by one or a few people and that can lead to a close-minded approach that could lead a company to disaster. Lastly, traditional structures require from manager approval which can lead to slow responses to issues that are time-sensitive (Hamel, 2011). Unlike a traditional structure, a boss-less one, is where employees can negotiate responsibilities and compensation with one another, with no titles.

One example of a company that is trying this approach is the Morning Star Company). Their approach to the boss-less management style of doing things is that they make the mission the boss. One other important factor in having this boss-less structure is that information is transparent. Employees at Morningstar use all information available to monitor their work and make decisions (Hamel, 2011).

Another example of a boss-less structure is that of Zappos which uses holacracy. This is defined as a comprehensive practice for structuring, governing, and running an organization that removes power from the management hierarchy and distributes it across clear roles, which can be executed autonomously without a micromanaging boss (Nowogrodski, 2015). Holacracy is made of 4 components, the top is the anchor circle made out of the board, secondly is the General company circle which is the executive leadership, then sub-circles are specific functions like marketing and production, and fourth is roles that are the typical jobs.

(Disagrees with the topic)

Debate Topic: Conventional Organizations Are Passe in the 21stCentury

In terms of an organizational structure, a company has many options. When considering an organizational structure, a company may want to look at its communication style, workflow, and employee outlook. By knowing these necessary factors, a company can choose the style that best aligns with their mission and goals and can allow their strategic plan to be implemented in the best way possible.

A conventional organizational structure allows the top management and chief officers to decide on the company's strategic plan. While allowing them to make these decisions, employees are left to do their job assignments and become experts in their roles. This allows for departmentalization, in which employees understand each other and their roles within the company. When allowing employees to focus on their job assignments instead of the company's direction, they can become experts in their roles. This ability allows for the company to improve efficiency and effectiveness because employees do not need direction on daily tasks. When employees become experts at their jobs, the company can focus on its mission and improve on its strategic plan rather than on employee understanding and knowledge.

The emergence of a flat organizational structure has also set off a different management method for the industry. The management method of a flat organizational structure is different, and its decision-making is decentralized. Employees have more initiative and decision-making power and do not need to go through special instructions from their superiors. In this way, the inefficiency of the traditional management hierarchy structure is eliminated, and employees can communicate and discuss more. The flat organizational structure can not only improve efficiency but also allow employees to work more actively for the company because employees are valued and respected by the company. Respect. In addition, the parallel building can also enhance the creativity and innovation of employees, as it can be implemented through more efficient discussions and sharing. Nevertheless, implementing a flat structure requires a strong culture of trust, internal transparency, and accountability. Without these critical elements, employees can struggle with choices in terms of work and decision-making, leading to potential productivity gains and conflict.

Four main reasons against a flat organization include tougher adjustment, longer induction, accountability challenges, and growth issues. Tougher adjustment refers to the ability for an employee or organization to adopt a flat organization. Due to the prevalence of the hierarchical structure, the talent pool's previous work experience will conflict with a flat organization's cultural practices. The adoption proves to be even harder when it scales to an organization-wide shift in its focus. To accommodate the flat structure, the organization must shift its strategic focus from cost leadership, efficiency, and stability to differentiation, innovation, and flexibility. Furthermore, the country's culture may also influence the adoption rate of flat organizations. For example, South Korea has a high power distance index score, which reflects how ingrained rank is inside its culture.

The tougher adjustment correlates to a longer induction time. For example, a new associate at Morning Star may take a year or more to integrate into the culture. 50% of new hires still leave within two years due to the inability to adopt the culture. Thus, a flat organization will incur higher HR spend to find and train qualified candidates. Training would need to be highly focused on flexibility and thinking entrepreneurially, as employees need the knowledge and skills to make decisive decisions and adapt effectively to take on more responsibility and think in terms of the entire organization instead of just a singular department.

A flat organization also lends itself vulnerable to fostering mediocrity if peers do not hold others accountable for mistakes or deviations from strategic goals. Due to the lack of formal reporting, a flat organization may require more organization and coordination time for projects that are complex in nature or involve numerous stakeholders.

While a flat organization is viable in smaller businesses, the structure will experience growth issues. Operationally, the opportunity cost of executives may outweigh the benefit of a flat organization if they are restrained to internal operations and coordination instead of focusing on an external strategy to achieve the company's vision. Due to its novel structure, a flat organization may not be able to successfully merge or acquire other companies due to the clash of cultures. Additionally, workers may experience dissatisfaction due to the unclear indicator of progress in comparison to industry peers. Career-oriented high achievers may become disruptive and isolated due to the pressure to conform to a teamwork-focused culture.