http://www.orgnet.com/orgchart.html

http://waderoush.typepad.com/twr/2005/03/james_surowieck.html

In an article called Organizational Hierarchy: Adapting Old Structures to New Challenges, Vladis Krebs says the structure of government is not efficient as it could be because it has not adapted to the agile and creative structures like those seen in the business world.  Krebs uses the example of the hierarchy of the

US intelligence community to discuss how an alternative structure could benefit the government.  The government wanted to improve its accuracy in the war and its agility to prevent terrorist attacks. In Krebs example, the president sits at the top of the hierarchy and has direct connections to the head of each intelligence agency.  In an effort to improve the efficiency of this network, it was proposed that a new position be created that would act as an intermediary between the heads of each agency and the president.  This intermediary would be responsible for analyzing and synthesizing the information from each agency.  

Krebs argues that a better modification would be to simply create connections among each of the heads of the agencies.  A new position, he says would be better only if the goal was to have “accountability and budget responsibility;” however, he believes that an interconnected structure would be better if the goal is “a smart, agile learning organization — able to adapt to a changing enemy.” 

Reading this article made me first wonder how the social connections function in information hierarchies such as that of the government.  The dynamics are much more complex than Krebs portrays.  I couldn’t help but think of a blog post by “Travels with Rhody,” that outlines (almost word for word) a lecture given by James Surowiecki on the Unwisdom of Crowds.   Surowiecki would argue that simply adding connections among the heads of each agency would not necessarily yield better decisions.  He warns that organizations can be “too connected,” even when other group members are really smart.  

When we were learning about information cascades in class, we discussed how the order of speakers could influence the final decision because the first few people could set in motion an information cascade.  Once this happens, it will take someone with more power (either in position or the information they possess) to stop this cascade.  So how does an organization structure itself so that it can efficiently integrate information while maintaining the most accurate information?   While Krebs believes that an interconnected structure would maximize the quality and efficiency of decision-making, Surowiecki emphasizes that the best organizational structure would “range across hierarchies” and include individuals with diverse opinions and information.  Krebs’ idea of information sharing is a good one; however, it is important to keep in mind the subtle (but tremendous) power that information cascades can have on groups trying to make a decision.  More information is needed to truly understand the dynamics of group decision-making, in order to develop the best organizational structure for both business and government.