Organizational Communication

Parkitson’s law predict that the number of people in an organization will increase at an annual rate regardless of the work to be done. In centralized organizations, power and decision points are few. In decentralized organizations, authority and decision making are spread throughout the organization, and authority is generally delegated to the smallest practicable units. Centralization usually used in a tall structure, while the flat structure used decentralization. 

Ideally, a combination of both centralization and decentralization authority may be required. The actual amounts of both may vary according to the specific goal, directions, personnel, and environment of the organizaion. For example is General Motor, which decentralizedits automobile manufacturing into several independent palnts, each responsible for the product and sales of a particular model. At the same tme, General Motor maintained a corporatewide, highly cntralized labor relations department to handle all labor mediation throughout the organization.

The following example illustrates some of the strength and weakness of both approaches.

 

A college was once managed by a dean who adhered to the classical principles of chain a command, strict funcionalization of job duties, unity of command, and a strong line oganization with a printed organization chart to identify lines of authority and appropriate channels of communication. Through an elaborate informal spy system and a kitchen cabinet composed of senior department chairmen, the dean was aware of most of the activities of the faculty within the college. As a result of his management style and attitude, he assembled a relatively tall structure with a highly centralized decision center-his office. The impact of this approach on the college was that while decision were made quickly, with authority and responsibility, very few people were involved or informed until after the decision  were made. The ultimate result was an efficient operation with highly specific goals and directions but with low morale and even apathy those not fortunate enough to be in the kitchen cabinet.

Shortly after this dean was promoted to the vice president, a new dean arrived whose style was radically different. He believed in spreading authority and decision making to as many faculty and students are possible. He assembled several college wide committes whose responsobility was advisory. The result of the new dean’s decentralized style was a high sense of morale and good spirit among the majority of the faculty. Many students and faculty were involved in decision making, which was slow and methodical, and at times a sluggish preliminary to action. Horizontal communication among the departments was almost nonexistent. College goals appeared to be vague, and  the general direction of the college appeared to be inconsistent. Ultimately, a group of senior faculty members developed into a clique that succesfully sought the resignation of the new dean.

 

The example above illustrates that both centralized and decentralized approaches to organizing people and making decisions have strength and weakness. ideally, a combination  of centralized and decentralized authority may be required.  The example of the college also highlights the main axiom of the classical theory of organization : adherence to structure and function as the sole basis or the organization of people. The greatest criticsm of this approach is the rigidity of strict adherence to structure. The second school of thought, the human relations school, uses more solutions like this.