Background:

The End of Management Point Management—at least as we know it—is dying. Formal organizational structures are giving way to flatter, less bureaucratic, less formal structures. And that’s a good thing. Innovative companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Groupon were born and now thrive thanks not to a multilayered bureaucracy, but to an innovative idea that was creatively executed by a flexible group of people freely collaborating. Management in those companies exists to facilitate, rather than control. The scope of what managers do has broadened to include typing, taking notes, and managing their own files/schedules, while the scope of what administrative assistants do has broadened to include making social media posts and assuming technical duties. The most innovative firms have questioned whether they need job titles at all, instead emphasizing collaboration throughout the organization. The best companies have eliminated offices altogether and encourage employees to mingle and form teams according to their project interests. This suits younger workers who aspire to work with the top players rather than report to them, and who value flexible hours and work-from-home options. Job titles are gone, roles are ambiguous, and reporting relationships morph by project. “There’s a struggle right now between the old and the new,” noted Adam Leitman Bailey, a New York real estate lawyer. “We don’t know what works. In the end, it’s what’s going to be best for the talent we hire.” The talent is ready for the elimination of management as we know it. The successful corporation of the future will have a flatter organizational structure and accountability based on performance. Counterpoint There is no “right size fits all” approach to organizational structure. How flat, informal, and collaborative an organization should be depends on many factors, but no matter what, management structure is needed. Let’s consider two cases. People lauded how loosely and informally Warren Buffett structured his investment firm, Berkshire Hathaway, until it was discovered his CFO and heir apparent David Sokol was on the take. Wouldn’t Buffett have known Sokol was compromised if he supervised more closely or had structures in place to check such “freedom”? It’s hard to argue with Berkshire Hathaway’s past successes, but they don’t prove the company is ideally structured. At Honeywell International, CEO David Cote seems relaxed and fun-loving (he rides a Harley and wears a leather bomber jacket to work), but his hard-hitting work ethic and firm hand on the reins are legendary. Cote’s control focus doesn’t end at the executive suite. At the factories, job titles are painted literally on the floor to indicate who needs to be present—and standing—at organizational meetings limited to 15 minutes by the clock. Is Cote a control freak? Maybe, but he successfully merged three disparate company cultures and more than 250 factories—the new Honeywell has climbed the Fortune 500 ranks and pulls in over $40 billion in annual sales. Profits have increased even faster than sales, in part due to Cote’s insistence on freezing raises and hiring only two to three employees for every four to five who exit. Berkshire Hathaway and Honeywell illustrate the strong need for management structure in an ever-changing, diverse, worldwide ­marketplace.

Question:

Which side do you agree with?

Why did you choose that side as well as provide supportive details backup your position.