Here we look at various situations in which planning and management systems, specifically top-down or organic approaches, are evaluated when it comes to their simplified chain of command.
We assume the situation of a standard company with no special circumstances. Our aim is to write something that can apply to non-corporate situations as well.
Top-down or organic in different sizes company
When it comes to size, a top-down approach usually develops naturally, as more departments and teams are created, managers are appointed to serve as a contact point. However, it is possible to prevent this by making higher ups accessible for the common rabble: This is extremely simple as only two actions are required:
1 High ranking members must declare themselves available and act accordingly.
2 No form of punishment must be given, public or private, to anyone who pitches something to top officials. That includes anything from stealing ideas to failure to address bullying the person who made the pitch. Jealous direct colleagues are usually the ones bullying in such a situation, so this is where a manager could come in.
Big company
The bigger the organisation, the more departments and layers it has. For this article we assume that it is unlikely for any employee to have regular exposure to another employee more than two layers away (own manager, plus that manager`s superior, and vice versa).
There are some problems to overcome within large organisation; people talk, a lot! So any person who contacts the manager of their manager, to suggest a genuine improvement is guaranteed to be treated unkindly. So we need a fairly anonymous system that goes straight to the top, potentially a regular meeting with a time block reserved for received input. Naturally the input system itself is not 100% anonymous, otherwise there could be no reward, it just does not have to be publicised who made the suggestion.
If management simply ignores all suggestions, or issues no reward, it would greatly reduce morale as employees feel ignored or taken advantage of.
Mid sized
This option is a bit awkward as the situation the company is in determines most of how good things would work: A medium sized organisation usually has a formal structure with several layers, just not all have necessarily filled every role that a full sized one would have. So you have got layers of people, things are just not 100% formalised.
Therefor it could be difficult for a low tier worker to know who to talk to, without fear of a mid level manager stealing his idea.
Small company
In a small company there really isn`t much room for discussion without allowing from bottom-up, otherwise it would be a single person making every decision. Which is not bad per se, it just creates the risk of people not willing to contribute at all.
Top-down or organic based on situation
Previously we looked at the rather general size measurement, below we look at more specific situations.
Custom products
When it comes to custom, there is a huge factor; all designs have to match client`s specs, so there is little room for argument. Improvements in processes should be listened to with an amount of respect that correspondents with the person`s quality as a craftsman: Custom products are pricey, with the promise that they are also superior in every way, so it you really need to listen to those who know how the sausage is made.
A tyrannical manager will drive people away, as processes become outdated and competition catches up, eventually the company is likely to become an alternative to regular shops, without the ability to compete on costs. There is bit of a contradiction with the previous paragraph; a highly skilled worker needs to instruct newer workers, who need to respect their superior`s skill. But not listening to new/less skilled employees creates the risk of becoming outdated or performing a senseless task (as result of being to close to the process to notice the error).
Factory
In a factory you typically have a overseer whose main responsibility is a number of produced goods per shift, so there will be very little interest in any changes to the product, since that would require shutting down production, followed by a short period of experimenting. Besides, it is perfectly possible that the factory works on commission, so has no input in what is being made.
Improvements for the process of producing should be welcome, which makes it partially suitable for an organic structure. A reward, fixed cash most likely, could be offered for anyone who makes a genuine improvement. It is possible that a specialised factory will not be able to change much, since some machines are expensive and difficult to build.
Regular office
Most offices are made up of many different tasks, not just the core selling product (such as replacing printer toner). So it is for all these that a organic organisation could receive input from their employees, though most of it is likely to come for their direct jobs. A manager who listens to his underlings is a manager that could improve the bottom line, if only through increased satisfaction: Ignoring input will result in checked out worker.
For most offices allowing people to contribute is a positive thing, each should feel that their contribution is considered, even when not applied. If truly useless ideas come, on a regular basis, and from the same person, it will seem tempting to adopt a more rigid approach: This will depend on the situation, perhaps a less formal input system could be adopted. Or explain why some ideas do not work. Naming the person (give public praise), and explaining why it cannot be done (cover your own ass), should keep everyone happy and motivated to continue making suggestions.
Geographically dispersed
Here we mean a corporate entity that has a lot of small(er) offices spread around the globe, and a single big office. Bigger offices for regions could replace the big central office. We will discuss both cases.
The general consideration here is whether or not to allow small local offices to decide what suits the market better, or only allow them to carry out what the overlord headquarter believes appropriate. Potentially a middle ground solution, where local offices supply information and recommendations, which are judged by a central figure.
A single central office
In this scenario local input, from those that deal with and live in the same area as customers, is fully ignored with top-down. In a more organic structure you do take employee input into consideration. This also is a matter of costs; creating a custom product for each local branch is going to be expensive, selling the exact same product saves a lot of costs; branches that lose money could be closed, since the standard product does not meet local taste.
The organic approach for a centralised organisation with many field offices requires a laissez-faire approach. The idea is to let your people decide what is best for the clients there. This can easily work when selling a service, physical products are harder since they have to be customised and, when not sold, cannot always be sold at cost elsewhere. A service can be changed at any given time, so is more suited for organic organisations.
Be ware that allowing each office to do as they please, creates a big risk of (startup) errors as there is no real standard. Creating a best practice when everyone practices something else is rather pointless.
Several region head offices
A bottom-up versions of this would a more of a collaboration between field offices and the regional head quarter. The absolute global HQ is involved, but more of a administrative office, not directly involved in what is being sold.
Local employees see what works in the market and report it back to their regional manager, who decides whether or not it is worth a try. The regional figurehead could also report the local finding to other branches in the region, to see if it also applies to them*. Having this sorted per region does reduce costs and allows for a regional standard to be set.
This approach should work for both services and goods, as the market ought to be sufficiently large for the increase in production costs. It depends on how similar the desires really are within each region.
*The grocery stores in your correspondent`s country claim that basic food articles are far more expensive than in neighbouring countries because of the need for ingredients to be listed in the local language. This could be fixed by some regions sharing a common tongue. Naturally local laws are to be followed in all cases.
