But as the guest lecturer had introduced, there is a type of hierarchy that is not so pyramidical as people would straight away imagine when speaking of hierarchy. This one is of an intergrated approach.
It's called the behavioural/ human approach to management. There is a supportive leadership where there is wide span of control and a flat organisational structure. This consists of a hierarchy of interlocking groups or people.
I believe that's what we are. We have a wide span of control for the task we tackle and there is a flat hierarchy where there are no clear distinctions between leader and other team players. Therefore this is called a decentralised approach. We all have certain responsibilty and this also shifts which creates a dynamic environment for the work we undertake.
A great report on the the knowledge and incentives created from groups or as they call them "horizontal communities" can be viewed from http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/Lazaric%20Raybaut%20Knowledge%20and%20trust%20Febrruary%20200611.pdf
"Groups, teams or “communities of practice” play an important part in the creation of knowledge and could be an appropriate organizational design for implementing specific incentives (rewards, bonus ...). If knowledge creation by such ‘horizontal communities’ may be difficult in the absence of appropriate intervention regulating their creativity; the hierarchy should not be envisaged as pure gendarme or instrument of obedience. According to us, the “organisational loyalty” or the “human docility” should not be considered ex ante as in the Simonian framework , nor should individual opportunism be envisaged as the starting point."
To summarise, Lazaric and Raybaut believe that groups that work together are important for creating knowledge; their creativity should be regulated but too much by hierarchical obedience but not too free that individuals take advantage.
A different view is on the idea that hierarchy is a crucial concept for employees' perception and attitude of leadership roles, is investigated in this article. Here is the abstract:
"This article investigates whether authority hierarchy still serves as an important factor influencing employee perceptions toward organizational roles and expected behavior. Results of a study in a federal agency suggest that hierarchy does serve as a significant force influencing employee attitudes toward leadership roles, contrary to the notion that hierarchy will diminish in importance over time. Hierarchy remains a crucial structural force in public organizations
and is unlikely to wither away."
Gerald T. Gabris, Douglas M. Ihrke (March 2007). "No End to Hierarchy: Does Rank Make a Difference in Perceptions of Leadership Credibility?". Administration & Society, 39 (1), p107-123 Retrieved June, 2008 from http://online.sagepub.com/
As seen in these articles and in sooo many others, there is a clear debate on whether the flat organisational or the pyramid structure is appropriate in business. But i would say that it really depends on the type of business and field the people are in. As seen in the article 'No End to Hierarchy' the federal agency need structure and hierarchy because in this type of environment there are levels of significance and more responsiblities.
In business sense, the flat structure is becoming more adapting to the social environment of businesses as making teams, especially highly qualified and professional teams can be very advantageous to owners which can carry the business to new heights.
