Public Allies Structure
The decision on whether to choose centralization or decentralization of an organizational structure depends on several factors. The activities of an organization for example play a crucial role in determining whether an organization will be centralized or decentralized. A centralized organization takes a structure that sees management coming from a single office at the top while the junior offices follow the decisions made without question. Centralization suffers the disadvantage that employees may be less motivated as they are only treated as machines for the organization but not a part of the organization. However, centralization gives an organization the benefit of achieving its goals without facing challenges that may occur due to several decision-making points. Decentralization, on the other hand, involves spreading decision-making throughout the organization. Every member of a decentralized organization feels recognized since they can decide on behalf of the organization. However, decentralization may hinder the organization from achieving its goals. Public Allies is best suited to operating as a decentralized owing to the nature of its activities while the director of the national board is responsible for the success of the organization.
Public Allies relies on the cooperation of local communities to succeed in their operations. Most diverse and underrepresented communities are cautious of the fact that some organizations may take advantage of their desperation to make them suffer further. Therefore, an organization dealing with such communities should have well-established structures to win the trust of the communities and help them in achieving their dreams. The struggles that Public Allies has been witnessing with the local sites could be as a result of the lack of cooperation between departments. Generally, decisions from higher offices may harm the operation of an organization where decisions need to be modified according to the needs of the community on the ground. Besides, Public Allies takes its operations to diverse communities, and decisions have to be diverse as well. Moreover, the nature of the activities that Public Allies undertakes suits it well to operate as a decentralized organization.
A decentralized structure will give Public Allies the best structure in terms of pursuing its goals. The interaction with diverse and underrepresented communities means that an organization should look at the specific challenges affecting each community. A decentralized structure offers the chance for local sites to make decisions that are in line with the challenges facing the communities on the ground (Richter, Schlaegel, Midgley & Tressin, 2019). The decision-making process in a decentralized organization has the local context in mind, and the results are always positive. One of the benefits of a decentralized system is that employees feel more engaged as they are allowed to make decisions and choices depending on their area of work and on behalf of the organization. The main reason why Public Allies should be decentralized is that the local context is essential for the success of the organization. Besides, the organization should consider trusting all the managers at local sites to avoid being bureaucratic and end up losing its grasp on the ground. Generally, a decentralized system will save the organization from the risk of suffering from potential mismanagement at the top as it happens with centralized organizations. Moreover, the delegation of decision-making powers to managers at local sites does not eliminate the roles and responsibilities of the director of the national board.
The director of the national board is tasked with overseeing the success of the organization and taking care of the interests of the shareholders. A decentralized organization has more responsibilities for the director of the national board. When decision-making is passed on to the managers at local sites, the goals of the organizations are not changed. Instead, the director of the national board is tasked with ensuring that all the decisions made at the local sites go in line with the goals of the organization. The conflict ensuing at Public Allies takes some input from the director of the national board (Richter, Schlaegel, Midgley & Tressin, 2019). First, the director has to do anything at their disposal to see the vision and mission of the organization coming to pass. However, the director might have seen some challenges that have hindered the success of the organization and decided to make a decision that would see the organization make the changes in its structure. First, the financing of the organization from a single source could pose a risk in that the future of financing is not guaranteed. Generally, the move to make Public Allies a decentralized organization can be attributed to the decision by the CEO to create local sites in a bid to have effective service delivery. However, the board could have employed alternative ways to see that the decentralization of the organization is not affected by the common challenges associated with decentralization.
Decentralization of organization is associated with a set of challenges that see most organizations choose to remain centralized. For example, different points of decision-making present the risk of local directors pursuing personal interests at the expense of the organization. The alignment of decisions at different local sites to the goals of the organization poses a significant challenge, and the decisions may end up hindering the organization from achieving its goals. The board of directors should have, for example, avoided the diversion of local sites, which meant that decisions would eventually contradict the goals of the organization. The national office was aware of the evolvement of the local sites but failed to take the necessary actions to avoid future conflicts. Also, the development of the new program model creating the local sites should have been codified to ensure that the local sites acted following the standards set by the national office. Besides, the lack of sufficient details allowed the local sites to change the model according to their interests. Generally, the conflicts that later came to haunt Public Allies can be attributed to the failure of the board of directors to set firm policies at the initial stages.
In sum, Public Allies is best suited to operating as a decentralized owing to the nature of its activities while the director of the national board is responsible for the success of the organization. The interaction with diverse and underrepresented communities means that an organization should look at the specific challenges affecting each community. A decentralized organization has more responsibilities for the director of the national board. The board could have employed alternative ways to see that the decentralization of the organization is not affected by the common challenges associated with decentralization. Generally, the operation of Public Allies as a decentralized organization is essential in ensuring that it achieves its goals.
References
Richter, N. F., Schlaegel, C., Midgley, D. F., & Tressin, T. (2019). Organizational structure characteristics’ influences on international purchasing performance in different purchasing locations. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(4), 100523.
The Bridgespan Group. (2004). Public Allies: Building the infrastructure for growth