It is said that there is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to organizational structure. Each organization has different needs and goals, and therefore requires a unique structure that will help it to achieve these. However, some experts have argued that there is indeed a "best" organizational structure for all organizations, regardless of their individual circumstances.
This case study will explore this argument by examining the battle of the gurus - between those who advocate for a centralized structure and those who argue for a decentralized one.
The debate between centralization and decentralization has been going on for many years, with no clear winner in sight. Supporters of centralization argue that it leads to greater efficiency and control within an organization. They claim that by centralizing decision-making, organizations can avoid duplication of effort and make better use of resources. In addition, centralization can help to ensure that all employees are working towards the same goal.
On the other hand, decentralization has its own set of advantages. Proponents of this approach argue that it leads to greater creativity and innovation, as employees are given more freedom to experiment and take risks. In addition, decentralized structures can be more responsive to change, as decisions can be made quickly at the local level. Finally, supporters of decentralization claim that it builds stronger relationships between employees and managers, as well as between different departments within an organization.
