Although some people are better at leading and some people are better at managing, no individual person is better at decision making than the collective knowledge available within an entire organization. Organizations need to, therefore, do a better job at harvesting this collecting knowledge their employees have and using it in a way that facilitates decision making. A more radical solution, Surowiecki, feels is to place actual decision making in the hands of a group of the top management, thereby outsourcing decision making away from the CEO and into the organization. I agree that this type of involvement would give employees a greater sense of voice in the organization, and would help the buy-in aspect of decisions. I also agree that if performed effectively, it would improve decision making. This decentralization of decision making would also help counter what Bruhn (2009) notes as an ethical challenge for organizations -- when there is a gray area between right and wrong. My two concerns would be how efficiently this collective knowledge could be harvested and aggregated for use and to ensure that those in the lower echelons of the organizational chart have knowledge the CEO does not, the reverse is true as well and needs to be taken into consideration. Conclusion and Thoughts

Each video covered a different issue with current business management. The primary conclusion that can be drawn from these three very different perspectives is that bureaucracy is a bad thing for an organization. Each of the three speakers' solutions were centered on countering the negative influence of bureaucracy. Abrahamson favored messiness and chaos. Barsh felt bureaucracy stifled emotions that could be better used than suppressed. Surowiecki surmised that bureaucracy led to the traditional...

For years scholars and executives alike have talked of the benefits of going with a flatter organizational chart and a more organic business structure. Around the country, companies have worked hard to destroy the silos that once hoarded information. Time and again we have been told bureaucracy is bad. However, it still remains, albeit often in a more diluted state, in organizations today. I personally don't know if bureaucracy is the most important concern for organizations.
I believe the future of leadership and management will be concerned with minimizing bureaucracy, but should be more concerned with nimbleness. Today's rapidly changing world will mean those organizations that can transform themselves to meet changing market demands and environments will be the ones that are most successful. Being nimble will lead to a reduction of bureaucracy naturally. However, it will also promote more proactive strategies, as opposed to the reactive strategies that Abrahamson sees causing companies to constantly be in ineffective states of change.