This paper examines the contrasting organizational structures encountered by a hypothetical employee named Eloise as she transitions from a small, flat, family-owned events planning firm to a larger, centralized company called Events Are Us. Drawing on organizational design theory, the paper distinguishes between decentralized and centralized structures, analyzes their respective advantages and disadvantages, and evaluates how structural fit — or the lack thereof — affects both employee experience and strategic effectiveness. The paper ultimately argues that, despite its limitations, adapting to a centralized structure is necessary for Eloise's professional advancement.
Organizational structure dictates the chain of command, lines of authority, reporting systems, decision-making processes, work allocation, roles and responsibilities, as well as manager/supervisor–subordinate relationships (Aquinas, 2008). Eloise initially worked for a small, family-owned events planning company where she had the freedom to be involved in virtually all aspects of the business and to participate in decision making. This suggests a decentralized, or flat, organizational structure. A decentralized organizational structure is characterized by little or no hierarchy (Aquinas, 2008). There is little distance between supervisors and their subordinates, and decision making is inclusive and participative. In a decentralized organizational structure, employees are not simply expected to take orders and follow instructions — they can also contribute their ideas and perspectives, thereby encouraging an atmosphere of innovation and creativity.
The organizational structure at Eloise's first job differs significantly from that of Events Are Us. While the former is characterized by a flat structure, the latter features a tall, or centralized, structure. In such a structure, there are typically well-defined hierarchies, with subordinates expected to follow orders without questioning (Burton, Obel & DeSanctis, 2011). In other words, subordinates have little or no say in decision making. The two major advantages of a centralized structure are that it ensures responsibilities are clearly defined and facilitates quick decision making (Aquinas, 2008). Nonetheless, since subordinates are usually not given an opportunity to offer their input, creativity is often hindered. Furthermore, relationships between supervisors and subordinates may become unhealthy or strained.
The events planning industry is unique in its own way. Though there may be similarities across firms, clients often want personalized or customized products. Customization has important implications for how service providers deliver their services, as clients will constantly demand more innovative and creative ideas. With its centralized structure, however, Events Are Us may not effectively customize products to the tastes and preferences of its clients. In a centralized work environment, fresh ideas are rarely welcome — the organization insists on the same way of doing things at all times. This may be disadvantageous to clients who desire more innovative solutions. In other words, Events Are Us's organizational structure does not fit well with the organization's strategic context. It is indeed important for an organization's structure to align with its strategic context (Burton, Obel & DeSanctis, 2011).
"How rigid hierarchy frustrated Eloise's creativity and autonomy"
"Why Eloise must adapt to centralized structure to advance"
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.