Wl Gore and Associates

Weakness of Egalitarian & Latice Structures W.L. Gore & Associates uses the egalitarian and latice organizational structure, which have weaknesses in team management, compensation and rewards, evaluation and motivation, and policy enforcement (Mayhew, 2013) and has shown they do not always perform better than hierarchical teams (Edge, 1984). These weaknesses can cause problems in decision making, the qualifications of employees, how compensation structures are formed, performance standards, and implementing and enforcing organizational policies.

These kinds of problems can lead to a chaotic work environment that causes issues with performance and return on investment. Latice organizational structures allow for multiple working and career pathways and contain underlying entrepreneurial components. This can lead to issues in team performance and qualification of team members if the purpose and goals of the project at hand shifts. The hiring process has no formal method of attracting and selecting qualified employees. Therefore, the selection of team members for projects would have no formal method of choosing adequately qualified members.

It would have to rely on the performance and known knowledge of employees in the selection of team member process. Another issue with the entrepreneurial components is the creation of imbalance in the career pathways of individuals. Depending on the pathways chosen by individuals, an imbalance of expertise for various positions can be created if too many employees choose the same thing. It could create a problem of expertise in some areas of the organization where not many employees choose those career pathways.

Latice structures lack the ability to form compensation and reward structures based on the qualifications and levels of expertise of employees. There is a lack of standardization to provide competitive salaries and benefits. With no standardization, it is difficult to create a fair and competitive structure to ensure employees are compensated for their qualifications and levels of expertise. The latice structure requires employees to maintain discipline and motivation at extremely high levels without providing a performance standard that individual performance can be measured.

With each person only accountable to themselves, policies are loosely formed and difficult to enforce, especially where leadership is sponsors and mentors that are not necessarily in a leader role. These conditions can lead to potential chaos. Research shows the egalitarian teams do not always outperform the hierarchical teams (Edge, 1984). Hierarchical teams push teams to sacrifice to increase return on investments. The egalitarian teams cannot force sacrifice to lead to better return on investments.

The research also showed there were no reported differences in self-reported decision making strategies between the egalitarian and hierarchical teams. Where egalitarian teams show more employee job satisfaction, they can provide lower return on investments where the profits of the organization are lower because.