Before discussing the current organization and the type of communication that is most characteristic of it, it may be crucial to gain more insight into the essential differences between tall and flat organizational communication variations. When an organization is defined as “tall,” communication is rarely established directly, as there are numerous other managers that are required to transfer information from one to another to convey the message (Johnson McPhail, 2016). According to Collyer (2016), tall organizations are often associated with bureaucracy and formal communication that places managers above employees and highlights the importance of hierarchy. This is why the message tends to move across the “taller” organizations slowly (Van Ruler, 2018). In the so-called “flat” organizations, there are fewer layers, which makes communication a laid-back process (Altman, 2016; Tasselli & Caimo, 2019). None of the discussion participants is exposed to the stress of not getting something right or conveying irrelevant data (Ashuri & Bar-Ilan, 2016). This paper will describe and compare tall and flat organizational structures. It will also offer a real-life example of an organization with a flat structure and a detailed overview of its operations.
The company that is reviewed is Autism Learning Partners (ALP), and its key area of practice is offering services to children with various developmental disabilities. The flat organizational structure employed at ALP is the focal point of further analysis. ALP features a flat communication style, but the span of control in this company is larger than usual. For the company at hand, it is true that communication is rather quick, but the amount of control over discussions displayed by the management is a bit stricter than usual. Nevertheless, it may be hypothesized that there could be more opportunities for promotion and unambiguous career paths at hand. Most of the time, discussions are pretty accurate and do not require different team members to address middle managers when having to clarify specific points regarding their tasks. This is rather beneficial for the organization because it does not get exposed to the situation where the original statement gets altered when conveyed from one manager to another manager and employees. Direct communication is what makes the organization stand out and pay more attention to individual ideas and aspirations. The increasing accuracy of communication (according to Van Ruler (2018)) is what many tall organizations are missing due to the inability to overcome the challenge of hierarchy and its ultimate rigidity.
Another variable indicating an organization’s structure is the speed at which communications are passed between departments and people within an organization. The only opportunity for their tall counterparts is to use e-mail communication, but it damages the element of personalization that stands at the forefront of flat organizational communication (Ashuri & Bar-Ilan, 2016). Managerial hierarchy does not get in the way of employees willing to convey a message to company executives, which seriously increases the pace of organizational operations and improves overall performance by a notch. If compared to a generic “tall” company, the reviewed organization will be much quicker in terms of decision-making as well due to a single approval from the responsible executive. As per Collyer (2016), many modern companies are trying to reduce the number of managerial levels to help tall organizations achieve the same communication speed.
Ultimately, the communication process could be outlined as effective. The rationale for this claim is that corporate rules and report configurations are significantly simpler than their tall analogs. With a better understanding of what is expected of them and what are their responsibilities, employees will complete tasks effectively while also paying attention to the level of performance across the organization (Ashuri & Bar-Ilan, 2016). Owing to the flat organizational structure, the team has the opportunity to evade many potential inter-department conflicts that could damage a tall organization within a matter of several days. Every worker within the organization realizes their responsibilities and creates room for the management to remain flexible and make decisions that do not require multiple consequential approvals from different-tier managers.
References
Altman, R. (2016). HR organizational structure–past, present, and future. Workforce Solutions Review, 7(4), 13-15.
Ashuri, T., & Bar-Ilan, Y. (2016). How flat organizations filter: Organizational gatekeeping in a networked environment. Information, Communication & Society, 19(10), 1411-1426.
Collyer, S. (2016). Culture, communication, and leadership for projects in dynamic environments. Project Management Journal, 47(6), 111-125.
Johnson McPhail, C. (2016). From tall to matrix: Redefining organizational structures. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(4), 55-62.
Van Ruler, B. (2018). Communication theory: An underrated pillar on which strategic communication rests. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 367-381.