Organizational structure shape how companies coordinate work, make decisions, and create value. Value creation is the process of making something helpful or better. Companies use time, tools, and labor to build items. Customers buy these items because they solve real problems. A company cannot last if it does not offer value; buyers will go for substitution.

A flat organizational structure is characterized by few or no layers of middle management between employees and senior executives. By reducing hierarchical levels, organizations can shorten communication channels, accelerate decision-making, improve coordination, and encourage greater employee involvement. A flatter structure can therefore enhance organizational agility, innovation, responsiveness, and employee engagement, particularly in rapidly changing markets.

As competitive and market dynamics have evolved, several established Indian companies have sought to make their organizational structures leaner and more responsive. Companies such as Cipla, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, and Apollo Tyres have undertaken initiatives to reduce hierarchical layers and simplify reporting relationships. In some cases, organizations have moved from traditional structures involving eight to ten reporting layers toward considerably leaner structures of approximately three to five levels. The objective is to improve organizational agility, reduce bureaucratic delays, control costs, and strengthen competitiveness in domestic and international markets.

Apollo Tyres: An Illustration of a Flatter Structure

Apollo Tyres provides an interesting example of how a traditional manufacturing organization can move toward a flatter organizational structure. Under the leadership of Managing Director Neeraj Kanwar, the company sought to reduce conventional bureaucratic layers and create a more streamlined operating model. Its high-technology manufacturing facility at Oragadam, Chennai, has been cited as an example of a highly streamlined, four-tier organizational structure.

The reduction of hierarchical layers can have important cost and operational implications. Maintaining multiple levels of middle management involves expenditure on managerial salaries, benefits, offices, administrative support, and other overheads. When unnecessary layers are removed, organizations can potentially reduce these administrative costs while simultaneously improving the speed of communication and decision-making.

However, the principal advantage of a flat structure is not merely the reduction of managerial salaries. Middle managers can perform important functions such as coordination, mentoring, performance monitoring, conflict resolution, and implementation of organizational strategy. Therefore, the objective of flattening should be to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy rather than eliminate management itself.

The resulting savings and productivity improvements can be redirected toward strategic areas such as research and development (R&D), employee development and incentives, technology adoption, process improvement, and competitive pricing. At the same time, faster communication between employees and senior management can enable organizations to respond more quickly to customer needs and market changes.

Thus, a flat structure can create value through a combination of lower administrative overhead, faster decision-making, greater employee autonomy, improved communication, and organizational agility. Its effectiveness, however, depends on the organization’s size, technology, managerial capabilities, employee competence, and the nature of its operations.

Horizontal Organization Sturcture

A horizontal organizational structure emphasizes teamwork, cross-functional collaboration, and shared accountability rather than a tall hierarchy with multiple layers of management. By reducing hierarchical barriers, organizations can accelerate decision-making, increase employee autonomy, improve responsiveness, and reduce certain administrative and operational costs.

Unlike traditional functional structures, where employees are organized into specialized departments such as marketing, finance, production, and human resources, a horizontal structure organizes work around core cross-functional processes and customer outcomes. Employees from different functional areas work together in self-managed or empowered teams, with a shared responsibility for delivering a specific end-to-end outcome to the customer.

Reduction of Inter-Departmental Friction: Horizontal structures can significantly reduce inter-departmental friction and delays. In traditional organizations, a project may move sequentially from one department to another—for example, from Design to Engineering and then to Marketing. Each transfer can create communication gaps, duplication of work, delays, and conflicts over priorities.

In a horizontal structure, specialists from these functions can work together as one integrated team. This reduces unnecessary handoffs and enables problems to be identified and resolved collectively at an earlier stage.

Customer-Centric Focus: A major advantage of horizontal organization is its emphasis on customer value rather than departmental performance alone. Teams are evaluated according to the quality and effectiveness of the outcome delivered to customers.

For example, instead of measuring a technology team primarily by the number of lines of code written, the organization may evaluate the team on the quality of the customer onboarding experience. This encourages employees to look beyond their individual functional responsibilities and understand how their work contributes to the complete customer journey.

Continuous Skill Progression: Cross-functional teamwork also promotes continuous learning and skill cross-pollination. Employees work closely with colleagues possessing different professional expertise and consequently develop a broader understanding of the organization’s activities.

Over time, this can create “T-shaped” professionals—employees who possess deep expertise in one area while also developing a working knowledge of other functions. Such employees are better equipped to collaborate, solve complex problems, understand the wider business ecosystem, and adapt to changing organizational requirements.

Example Mahindra & Mahindra provides an interesting illustration of the movement toward cross-functional product-development teams in the automotive industry.

In a large automotive organization, vehicle development traditionally involves several specialized functions, including research and development, sourcing, manufacturing, engineering, design, finance, and marketing. If these functions operate primarily as independent vertical silos, coordination can become complex and product-development cycles can become lengthy.

Mahindra’s approach to vehicle development has increasingly emphasized integrated, cross-functional collaboration, bringing different areas of expertise together around specific vehicle-development objectives. Such an approach supports closer coordination between engineering, design, sourcing, manufacturing, and marketing teams.

The development of products such as the XUV700 and Scorpio-N, as well as Mahindra’s expanding electric-vehicle portfolio, demonstrates the importance of integrating diverse capabilities around a common product and customer objective.

The broader lesson is that horizontal organization does not necessarily mean removing functional expertise. Rather, it means connecting that expertise through cross-functional teams so that employees work collectively toward a common outcome. A horizontal structure shifts the organizational emphasis from “Which department owns the task?” to “Which team is responsible for delivering the outcome?” This shift can improve speed, collaboration, innovation, employee empowerment, and customer focus.

Vertical organizational structure

A vertical organizational structure is a traditional, hierarchical structure in which authority flows from the top management downward through clearly defined levels of management. It is characterized by a formal chain of command, specialized roles, centralized decision-making, and clearly established reporting relationships.

Vertical structures create value primarily through control, accountability, specialization, consistency, and operational stability. They are particularly appropriate for organizations that operate on a very large scale or in environments where precision, regulatory compliance, risk management, safety, and standardized procedures are critical.

A major advantage is the clear chain of command. Employees know whom they report to, what their responsibilities are, and who has the authority to make final decisions. Decisions may pass through several levels of supervision, allowing organizations to review risks, maintain quality standards, and ensure that established procedures are followed. This can reduce operational errors, strengthen regulatory compliance, and provide greater consistency in execution.

Vertical structures are also valuable when an organization has tens of thousands of employees. Without clearly defined roles and reporting relationships, such large organizations can experience confusion regarding authority and responsibility. A hierarchical structure establishes boundaries, simplifies performance evaluation, and creates accountability at every level.

Another important source of value is functional specialization. Employees generally work within specialized departments such as finance, human resources, marketing, operations, or technology. They are guided by managers who possess deep expertise in their respective functions. This enables organizations to develop specialized knowledge and maintain professional standards.

Example: State Bank of India: A prominent Indian example of a large-scale organization using a hierarchical structure is State Bank of India (SBI). Given its enormous scale, extensive branch network, large workforce, and responsibility for managing financial transactions and risks, the bank requires well-defined authority, standardized procedures, regulatory controls, and accountability.

For example, a branch manager cannot independently alter fundamental banking policies, risk parameters, or regulatory procedures. Such matters are governed through established organizational and regulatory hierarchies. Decisions therefore move through appropriate levels of authority, ensuring that risk, compliance, financial control, and accountability are maintained.

Matrix Structures

A matrix organizational structure combines the advantages of functional and divisional or project-based structures. Employees typically report to two managers—a functional manager responsible for technical expertise and professional development, and a project or product manager responsible for achieving specific project objectives.

The matrix structure creates value by integrating specialized expertise with project flexibility. Instead of keeping employees within isolated functional departments, organizations can share specialized talent across multiple projects according to changing strategic priorities. For example, a senior software developer may work on Project A for several months and subsequently be assigned to Project B, allowing the organization to utilize scarce expertise where it creates the greatest value.

The major value-creating features of a matrix structure includes: Better utilization of specialized talent across different projects. Greater flexibility in allocating employees according to business priorities. Cross-functional collaboration between technical and business teams. Faster response to changing customer and market requirements. Balance between technical expertise and project outcomes. Reduced duplication of specialized resources, which can improve cost efficiency.

However, the matrix structure also creates challenges. Dual reporting can produce role ambiguity, conflicting priorities, and managerial tension if the functional and project managers do not coordinate effectively. Therefore, clear authority, communication mechanisms, and performance expectations are essential.

Example: Tata Consultancy Services (TCS): Tata Consultancy Services provides a useful example of how matrix-like arrangements can operate in a large global IT-services organization. Its scale requires employees with specialized technological expertise to work across different industries, clients, and projects.

For example, a technology specialist may remain connected to a technology or functional community while simultaneously being deployed to a client engagement or industry-focused project. This enables TCS to combine deep technical expertise with industry and customer knowledge. Thus, the fundamental value proposition of a matrix structure can be expressed as: Functional expertise + project flexibility + shared resources = higher organizational adaptability and resource utilization. In simple terms: a functional structure asks, “What are you an expert in?” A project structure asks, “What project are you working on?” A matrix structure asks both questions simultaneously.

Some serious work has been done on span of control by management experts; and according to them, the span of control should not be more than 1:6 at the top level, while at the lower level of management, the span of control should not be more than 1:20. This means, the superior at the top level should not have more than 6 subordinates under his control. Similarly, the superior at the lower level should not have more than 20 subordinates under his control. However, these are only theoretical figures. In practice, the span of control depends on many factors such as nature of work, ability of supervisor, ability of subordinates, philosophy of the organization, structure of organization etc.

The concept of Span of Control was developed, initiated and popularized by British Army General Sir Ian Standish Monteith Hamilton (1853-1947) through his 1921 published book titled “The soul and body of an army.”

Over the years, however, there have been so many differing views about the optimal span of control and its inevitable conclusion is that it is capability and grasp of the supervisor. The ideal span is partly determined by the nature of the work involved. With craftsmen the number can be quite small because the level of supervision required is high; and at the shop floor, with mass production, however, the span of control can be many times higher because each worker has a clearly defined task to perform which requires little regular oversight. The contemporary view is that spans depend on both the nature of industry and constitution of a firm.

In a multitier management structure more approval layers lead to slower decision making processes. In their eagerness to exercise authority, managers often obstruct, rather than expedite decision making. Besides managers add overhead, and as an organization grows, the costs of management rise in both fixed and relative terms. Also bias cannot be overruled in decision making. In a hierarchy if the power the decision making is vested in a single person, he may distort decisions. The danger is greatest when the decision maker’s power is, for all purposes, uncontestable. Thus, span of control in organizational development becomes vital.

Spans of control can be consciously enlarged by making workers more autonomous and more capable of managing themselves. They can also be distended by increasing the number of rules and constraining the freedom of junior employees to make mistakes. As a span of control gets larger, it exponentially (and dramatically) increases the number of relationships among individuals within each management cell. One manager and six subordinates, for instance, create 222 relationships among the seven of them; one manager and 16 subordinates create over 500,000 relationships.

Traditionally managers were rewarded according to the number of employees under their control. Those at the top are not only responsible directly for the employees who report to them, but also (indirectly) for the lower-level employees who report to their subordinates. The route to higher rewards was to move up the pyramid by climbing the corporate ladder.

In 1800s, Eli Whitney (an American inventor best known for inventing the cotton gin) has experimented by giving his managers different spans of control at his gun factory. Whitney in later part of his life had turned his talents to the manufacture of firearms. He had established his machine shops at Whiteville, near New Haven. Whitney was a multi-faceted person. Almost 200 hundred years later, Eli Whitney’s readings on span of control still continue.

Narrow span of control: Narrow Span of control means a single manager or supervisor oversees few subordinates. This gives rise to a tall organizational structure.

Wide span of control: Wide span of control means a single manager or supervisor oversees a large number of subordinates. This gives rise to a flat organizational structure.

There is an inverse relation between the span of control and the number of levels in hierarchy in an organization, i.e. narrower the span, the greater is the number of levels in an organization.

Narrow span of control is more expensive as compared to wide span of control as there it involves more number of superiors and therefore there are greater communication problems between various levels of management. Wide span of control is best suited when the employees are not widely scattered geographically, as it is easy for managers to be in touch with the subordinates and to supervise them.

In case of narrow span of control, there are comparatively more opportunities for growth as the number of levels are more. The more efficient and organized the superiors are in performing their tasks, the better it is to have wide span of management. Also, the less motivated and confident the employees are, the better it is to have a narrow span of management so that the supervisors can spend time with them and take charge of them well.

GE’s success in the early ’90s is credited to its philosophy of span of control; when some managers had as many as 10 direct reports to look at and it was evident that it could partially work. Managers were forced to loosen their control-orientation and empower their subordinates because there wasn’t enough time in the day to supervise everybody as they had done in the past. So instead of checking up on people they began to add value in other ways through strategy development, increased customer contact, process improvement, mentoring and coaching.GE’s former CEO and chairman, the legendary Jack Welch, believed that the right number for span of control was between 10 and 15. “This way you have no choice but to let people flex their muscles, let them grow and mature,” he said. “With 10 or 15 reports, a leader can focus only on the big important issues, not on trivia.”

Historically, the concern over span of control was based on the idea that some optimal number of manageable subordinates should exist. Researchers in the past, such as Col. Urwick, stated that the optimal span of control was five or six. This assumption was based on a feeling that managers have a limited span of attention, energy and time. If a manager was responsible for more than five or six subordinates, it was felt that the manager would lose track of what was happening. This was illustrated mathematically by A. V. Graicumas, whose work indicated that the number of potential interactions with subordinates will increase geometrically with respect to the manager’s increasing span of control.

The 2009 economic crises caused a significant decline in automotive market shares. According to the Research and Statistics Branch at the United Nations Industrial Development (UNID) Organization, this decrease in market share and market demand, forced the Big Three GM, Ford, and Chrysler LLC to shut down plants, layoff employees, cut production and make organizational changes such as increasing the span of control. Post 2009 the Big Three started looking at different organizational strategies in order to reduce cost. A particular attention was given to the span of control; looking at its efficiency and effectiveness.  According to Stephen Wunker (2012) the new trends within the Big Three are based on downsizing and flattening the organizations; thus, increasing the span of control of the top brass.

The moral of this article is emphasizing on a healthy span of control for success of the business.

]]> https://drvidyahattangadi.com/maintain-a-healthy-span-of-control/feed/ 0