It took something like 20 years, for example, for the US Air Force to really understand who should have the last word as to whether a new aircraft was ready to fly. For example, the U.S. Air Force has the last word on who should really know whether a new aircraft is getting ready to fly. It turns out that the real boss was the sergeant crew chief, not the colonel who commands the repair crews. MULTIPLE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES As I have already mentioned, someone in the organization must have the authority to take command in a crisis. It is also a sound general principle for all kinds of organizations that any member of the organization should have only one "master." There is wisdom in the old proverb of the Roman law that a slave who has three masters is a free man. It is a very old principle of human relations that no one should be put into a conflict of loyalties -- and having more than one master creates such a conflict. A conflict is raised between loyalties - and having more than one lord creates such a conflict.

That's where the so-called jazz combo teams, so popular now, often go wrong. The engineer member, for example, reports to the team leader, but she also reports to the chief of her specialty function. So with the finance member: He owes loyalty both to the team leader and the organization's overall finance chief.

It is a sound structural principle to have the fewest number of layers, that is, to have an organization that is as "flat" as possible -- if only because the first law of information theory tells us that "every relay doubles the noise and cuts the message in half." It is a sound structural principle to have a minimum number of layers, i.e. to have an organization that is as "flat" as possible - if only because the first law of information theory tells We, "Every relay of noise and doubles cuts the message in half."

Asked by: ley1216 - Level 4