Partnerships should consider an inverted organizational structure
The traditional organizational structure is a pyramid in which the president is at the head, followed by officers/committee chairs with participants/members at the bottom. This traditional, hierarchical structure was created by Max Weber (1924/1947) to show divisions of labor in order to display how organizations should operate. Weber created this structure to promote order and accountability within the organization. This traditional structure (where the president is at the top) shows how power, authority and responsibility flows downwards. The president has the most power, which is shared by the officers/committee chairs below him, leaving the participants/members with little or no say in the decision-making process.
The fact that the participants/members have little or no say can be harmful to some partnerships, since they are the people who handle the day to day things of an organization, and may know the organization better than the president. But as times changed, people needed organizations to be collaborative, compassionate and empathetic. So to modernize this traditional pyramid, the structure was turned upside-down, so that members are at the top with the president at the bottom.
So now, instead of the president giving orders he is now supporting the work of officers/committee chairs so they can meet the needs and wants of the participants/members.
Let's compare traditional and inverted partnerships. This theory of an inverted organizational structure doesn’t change the flow of power, but it does change the role of the President; instead of him being the ideal “boss” in charge of everything, he acts as a coach to support the people below him to reach the common goal. This changes how people communicate within the organization, since the president would be more approachable since he is there to help you rather than just giving you orders. Now the common goal can be reached with the input of all members of the partnerships.
Joint venture partners, what do you think about this?
Best Regards,
vip-ip ...
The fact that the participants/members have little or no say can be harmful to some partnerships, since they are the people who handle the day to day things of an organization, and may know the organization better than the president. But as times changed, people needed organizations to be collaborative, compassionate and empathetic. So to modernize this traditional pyramid, the structure was turned upside-down, so that members are at the top with the president at the bottom.
So now, instead of the president giving orders he is now supporting the work of officers/committee chairs so they can meet the needs and wants of the participants/members.
Let's compare traditional and inverted partnerships. This theory of an inverted organizational structure doesn’t change the flow of power, but it does change the role of the President; instead of him being the ideal “boss” in charge of everything, he acts as a coach to support the people below him to reach the common goal. This changes how people communicate within the organization, since the president would be more approachable since he is there to help you rather than just giving you orders. Now the common goal can be reached with the input of all members of the partnerships.
Joint venture partners, what do you think about this?
Best Regards,
vip-ip ...