Analyze peer posts and provide a response with a new academic peer reviewed article. This is the feedback instructor provided so please adhere to their feedback as well:
The discussion board should be a “conversation” between you and your colleagues. I know you are sticking to third-person voice, but for the discussion board only, its OK to create a friendlier tone for this class. For example, instead try:
“Hi Lois,
I see how you reflected upon certain aspects of….”
Instead of
“In the post, Jackson reflects…..”
Post 1 – Author: James
Centralization and Decentralization of Organizations
There are a variety of ways to organize teams and businesses, and the optimal structure are task and environment dependent (Zhu & Jiao, 2013). Ivancevich et al. (2018) identified three important dimensions of structure for organizations: formalization, centralization, and complexity. Levels of formalization depend largely on how much of the business’ operational rules exist in written form. Centralization has to do with hierarchy and decision-making authority. Complexity would describe the level of specialization of jobs within the organization. The purpose of this paper is to briefly discuss the second of the three dimensions, centralization, exploring centralization and decentralization, benefits and challenges of each, and a practical example.
Discussion
Centralized and Decentralized Team Structures
Before discussing the pros and cons of centralized or decentralized team structures, some basic definitions and concepts are in order. Centralization and decentralization could be envisioned along a continuum with fully centralized on one side and fully decentralized on the other. The two concepts primarily have to do with decision-making authority within an organization or team (Hsiao & Wu, 2020). A team with a centralized structure occurs when few (or one) members of the team/organization has decision-making authority. A decentralized structure distributes and delegates decision authority to a larger proportion of the group, or the entire team (Hur & Riyanto, 2012).
Benefits and Challenges
The benefits of a centralized versus a decentralized organizational structure will depend largely upon the goals of the organization and the environment in which it operates. Zhu and Jiao (2013) argue that simple environments are better suited to centralized organizations (as they are likely to produce fewer errors), and decentralized organizations may be more suited to complex and rapidly changing environments. Ivancevich et al. (2018) expand the concepts of centralization and decentralization, replacing them with similar terms that encompass more elements mechanistic and organic. The mechanistic structure generally has a characteristic of being centralized, where an organic organization has more decentralized authority. Again, relative benefits (and challenges) are dependent on the team mission and operational environment.
Practical Example
An interesting example of the interplay between centralized and decentralized operation exists within the US military, particularly the U.S. Army. Accurately viewed as a hierarchical and often centralized organization, there is a clear chain of command and specified decision-making authority, focused at the top leader of the sub-organizations, usually referred to as commands. However, there is also significant emphasis on the initiative, adaptation, and real-time decision-making of junior leaders, particularly noncommissioned officers (NCOs). While the overall plan is often developed and directed in a highly centralized manner, many missions afford good deal of autonomy during the on the ground execution of the mission. This is because conditions change during execution, or dont fit the original plan, requiring real-time adaptation and decision-making. This presents an interesting combination of centralized and decentralized elements.
Conclusion
This brief exploration of centralization and decentralization (as an organizational structure) indicated some relative benefits and challenges for each. Centralized organizational structures might be more suited to less complex environments, where decentralization might afford more flexibility for complex environments. An interesting practical example of centralization and decentralization is found in the U.S. Army. Known as a centralized and hierarchical organization, there is latitude for decentralized execution at the small unit level during mission execution. A key take away from the information presented here is that the level of centralization should be adapted to the mission and environment of the organization.
Post 2 – Author: Kyle
Centralized vs Decentralized Teams
For as long as there have been small groups of interdependent individuals sharing responsibility for specific outcomes (Teams) there has been discussion around which is better centralized or decentralized decisions (Hollenbeck et al., 2011). Centralized teams are generally considered to be more efficient while decentralized teams are considered more adaptable (Troster et al., 2014). That simplification must be considered just that a vast generalization and most scholarly articles will suggest that there is no one right way to structure a team, the answer is, well it depends. Centralized structures can be more efficient as a formal leader may be in a better position to see the larger context of the work, share best practices among workers, and reduce duplication of efforts. This is contrasted by the opportunity for the leader to be overburdened in the communication and cause inefficiencies when too much information is bottlenecked by one individual (Troster et al., 2014). Indeed many scholars have developed leadership matrixes to define the type of structure based on task specialization, production goals, the variability of the work, and skill level of the team (Hollenbeck et al., 2011).
In my previous job at Tenet Health, I was on a very centralized team, in which the supervisor ensured that not only were all decisions made by her, each team member was siloed and unaware of what other team members were doing. We were all an Army of one, as the saying goes. My current role on an incubator team is the opposite we have no formal leader merely a coach that we go to when we need assistance outside of the organization. Each team member has areas of expertise, but all lean on each other. Interestingly research by Troster et al., (2014) suggests that it is much easier for a team to transition from a centralized structure to decentralized than the other way around.
