Organizations should be structured in a clear hierarchy in which the people at each level, from top to bottom, are held accountable for completing a particular component of the work. Any other organizational structure goes against human nature and will ultimately prove fruitless.
The speaker claims that all organizations should include a clear hierarchy of accountability because any other structure would work against human nature and therefore prove fruitless in the end. This claim gives rise to complex issues about human nature and the social structures best suited to it. In my view, the claim assumes a distortedly narrow view of human nature, ignoring certain aspects of it that are undermined by hierarchical structure in ways that ultimately hurt the organization.
First, the organizational structure the speaker recommends undermines the nexus between worker and product that facilitates efficiency and productivity. When employees are responsible for just their small component of work, they can easily lost sight of larger organizational goals and the importance of their role in realizing these goals. In turn, workers will feel alienated, unimportant and unmotivated to do work they are proud of. These effects cannot help but damage the organization in the end.
Second, compartmentalizing tasks in a hierarchical structure stifles creativity. An acquaintance of mine worked for a company that had established a rigid organizational battier between designers and engineers. The designers often provided the engineers with concepts that were unworkable from an engineering standpoint. Conversely, whenever an engineer offered a design idea that allowed for easier engineering, the designers would simply warn the engineer not to interfere. This is a typical case where organizational barriers operate against creativity, harming the organization in the end.
Third, strict hierarchy undermines the collegiality and cooperation among coworkers needed for a sense of common purpose and pride in accomplishment. The message from the designers to the engineers at my friend's company produced just the opposite- resentment between the two departments, low moral among the engineers whose creative suggestions were ignored, and ultimate resignation to do inferior work with an attitude that developing ideas is a waste of time.
In sum, the speaker seems to assume that humans are essentially irresponsible and unmotivated, and that they therefore need external motivation by way of a layered bureaucratic structure. The speaker misunderstands human nature, which instead requires creative exercise and sense of purpose and pride in accomplishment. Bu stifling these needs with organizational barriers, the organization is ultimately worse off.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-01-01 | tahmeed1993 | 83 | view |
- The chart below shows information about Heart Attacks by Age and Gender in USA. Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features, and make comparisons where relevant.The frequency of heart attacks in the US.MenWomenThousands29-4445-6 56
- It s not possible for someone to effectively care for others unless they are taking good care of themselves 60
- Does travel helps to promote understanding and communication between countries 73
- You are organising a local committee meeting. You would like a local MP to attend the meeting to contribute to a discussion about green areas in the community.Write a letter of invitation to the MP's secretary, Mrs Shelton. In your letterintroduce yo 78
- You recently stayed in a hotel in a large city The weather was very unusual for the time of the year and the heating cooling system in the hotel was quite inadequate Write a letter to the manager of the hotel In your letter Give details of what went wrong 78
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 241, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'lose'
Suggestion: lose
...mall component of work, they can easily lost sight of larger organizational goals an...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, first, if, second, so, therefore, third, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2122.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 366.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.79781420765 5.12650576532 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.3157468529 2.78398813304 119% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.584699453552 0.468620217663 125% => OK
syllable_count: 673.2 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.6399155238 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.823529412 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5294117647 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.209325726468 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0624594965795 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0560745031189 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10272987494 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0491741180927 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.36 12.5979740519 130% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.51 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.