organization is, the greater the potential for tensions and conflicts. Here good
leadership is called for.
The communication structure is reflected in both planned and unplanned infor-
mation relations. The information of each individual and their ability to get
information and to share it depends on their position within the communication
structure. Due to the great importance of information for the leadership, this
structure has a particularly strong influence on the management processes in a
company.
The formal power structure clearly defines the subordination relationships
between the individual and other members of the organization and therefore
determines who has legitimate claims to manage. Yet there is also informal
power that is beyond the visible hierarchy in every company. We all know the
multipliers and influences of power. Whether it is the personal assistant or veteran
project manager – they are all listened to by the truly influential people. Even
though they have no formal power, they wield considerable influence and usually
have high social intelligence even without leadership positions.
In short this means: the type of leadership also depends on the shape and
complexity of the present or desired organizational structure. This structure can
be used with the help of five dimensions, which are: specialization, standardization,
formalization, centralization, and configuration (see Heinen 1998, p. 171 ff.). In
addition, a distinction is often made between the operational and organizational
structure, i.e., between the organizational chart of reporting lines on the one hand
and the numerous processes of the company on the other.
The observable developmental trends from employee to co-entrepreneurs, and
from steered authoritarian and hierarchically organized companies towards partici-
patory firms in a rapidly and radically changing environment have forced a soften-
ing of rigid structures. There is no perfect organization, but instead many
organizational forms are ideal for their specific purposes (see Drucker 2000).
There are already several prototypes of new organizational forms that take
into account this paradigm shift in the economy and employment: the project
organization, which is staffed by steering committees, project managers and
multi-departmental working groups and is shaped by the principles of project
management; the “network” organization, in which autonomous possessors of
know-how are connected only by common objectives, a high degree of trust and
modern communication technologies; and the “virtual” company, the components
of which are loosely connected together, coming closer if required. There is also the
concept of the “primordial soup,” in which spontaneous new combinations and
structures are established, or the “amoeba organization,” which is constantly
dividing. Virgin, Goldman Sachs and Southwest Airlines are American examples
of these new forms of structuring. Their survival principle is “be quick or be dead,”
and they are characterized by flat hierarchies and organic structures, making them
extremely flexible and action-oriented (see de Vries 2002, p. 51).
Christopher A. Bartlett and Sumantra Ghoshal do not consider the present or
future central task of leadership to be forcing people into the corset of organiza-
tional structures, but creating a flexible organization that promotes the staff’s
2.4 The Leadership Situation 109