I’m not sure I agree with the conclusions of this article, as I don’t agree with the (made-up) premises. At least it begins well:

As Henry Mintzberg noted in The Structuring of Organizations in 1979, “The words centralization and decentralization have been bandied about for as long as anyone has cared to write about organizations.” And that is a pretty long time, at least since 400 B.C., when Jethro advised Moses to distribute responsibility to various levels in the hierarchy.

The author, a ‘strategic advisor’, introduces four qualities he claims most managers wabt. I’d question this, and certainly ‘perennity’ which I think he’d be better off replacing with ‘resilience’. In fact, the whole article, by the time you get to the end, seems to be an attempt to explain why decentralisation is a bad idea. But then, he would say that.

In an age where the concept of “self-managed organization” attracts much attention, the question of centralization versus decentralization does not go away. Nicolai Foss and Peter Klein argue in the article “Why Managers Still Matter” that “In today’s knowledge-based economy, managerial authority is supposedly in decline. But there is still a strong need for someone to define and implement the organizational rules of the game.”

The trouble is, I think the rules of the game may have changed.

Source: Harvard Business Review