Hierarchical Organizational Structure and Leadership

Hierarchical Organizational Structure and Leadership

Anna Saiti, Harokopio University and Theodoros Stefou, Independent Scholar
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.709
Published online: 29 May 2020
Summary
When using the hierarchical approach, one delegates duties from the upper to the lower levels of a hierarchical
structure. This system is characterized by an echelon arrangement (“a pyramid organization”), which gives the
impression of a pyramid. This kind of structure is the simplest type of work distribution and is based upon the Fayol
principles, namely, the unity of administration and a hierarchical scale. Certainly, this system of organizational
structure (as with any system) has both advantages and disadvantages. A hierarchical approach expresses the
classical view of the organizational structure and may be implemented in any kind or size of organization. If
organizations are to enhance employees’ motivation and team spirit then employees’ perceptions are an important
tool. Within this framework, individuals in the military and educational sector have a rather sensitive working
environment, one quite different from other sectors.
Leadership is without doubt the most essential part of any organization and is key for the efficient performance and
continued development of an organization. Flexible networks, open communication processes, and leaders with
vision and a creative, constructive, and positive spirit favorably affect employees’ feelings and enhance innovation
and fluidity. Taking into consideration that a highly hierarchical system may adversely affect incentives to exert
effort as well as the efficiency of communication channels, one may consider the importance of the contribution of
a leader and the development of leadership as an acute issue that has a significant impact upon staff morale and
efficient performance, especially in military and educational sector.
Keywords: hierarchical structure, leadership, organization planning, decision-making, military organizations,

organizational structure
Subjects: Educational Administration and Leadership
Introduction and Aims of the Study
A hierarchical approach expresses the classical view of the organizational structure and may be
implemented in any kind or size of organization. The extent of power delegation at the
organizational level depends on the level of centralization/decentralization of the organizational
decision-making and the level of division of the work (Mullins, 2010; Schneeweiss, 1998), the
hierarchical approach is a common managerial structure type for large organizations in the
public domain.
Indeed, accountability of the subordinate to the manager provides better control of all actions and
activities and facilitates the decision-making process and hence monitoring of organizational
performance. These personal interactions between staff also give a direct character to the
information process. However, this system of organizational (e.g., educational) structure does
Page 1 of 24
Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Gothenburg University Library; date: 14 January 2024
exhibit drawbacks (slowness and inflexibility due to the strict rules of the hierarchy for
transmitting orders and guidance, barriers in cooperation and coordination due to the many
hierarchical levels, etc.).
In the hierarchical approach, the interactions among hierarchical levels are quite clear. The
process may be divided into three main stages (Schneeweiss, 1995):
Anticipation. Upper-level management, knowing the main characteristics of those at the

lower levels, makes decisions and can predict their impact on the lower level.
Instruction. In this stage, upper-level managers give instructions to lower-level

management. These instructions are based on the decisions made in the previous stage.
Reaction. In this stage, those at the lower level react to the decisions made by those at the
upper level, and their reactions may influence the first stage of interdependence, namely,
anticipation.
In fact, the first stage of interdependence is the influence of the upper level on the lower level
whereas the third stage is the other way around. The interdependence among departments or
levels of power (hierarchy) is not symmetrical. There may be a level of management with a
greater impact than others, which creates an irregular dependency between departments and/or
levels.
Indeed, in practice, the division of work and decisions among the levels/departments is rather
complex since there might be mixed types of hierarchy (such as groups) called to examine a
complex organizational issue and, after careful study, to make suggestions to the central line of
the hierarchy. Although these are not formal decisions, they may influence the decision of the
central line and particularly leadership tasks, namely, “the execution of the decisions and how
the execution processes can be performed” (Schneeweiss, 1995, p. 28).
With reference to the education sector, it is true that many educational systems worldwide are
centralized and thus the degree to which authority and responsibility are transferred to the lower
levels of the hierarchy is relatively low. Although, on the one hand, a centralized system helps to
ensure a more uniform implementation of policy, more direct control over the work, and a better
use of staff (organization members), on the other hand it tends to rely on the sideways transfer of
information and to restrict vertical communication, particularly from the lower levels to the
higher levels of the hierarchy. While a vertical hierarchical structure may be well suited to other
types of organization such as the military, the benefits of such a type of structure for an
organization in education are questionable: in the vertical hierarchical structure the teaching
force is at the lowest level of the system whereas it should be at the “centre and the heart of the
system” (Zavlanos, 1998, pp. 80–81). While teachers, as an interdependent element of the
educational system, are obliged to maintain the rules of the system, those same rules stifle
teachers’ creativity and innovation. Ultimately, the efficiency of teaching staff depends more on
the content of the rules that determine their role in the system and less on the organization’s type
of system.
Page 2 of 24
It is generally accepted that in order for a team to work effectively it is necessary to design and
maintain structured roles for them. The main purpose of the administrative function of
“organizing” is to increase team effectiveness. Indeed, an organization needs to “organize” itself
to (a) optimize the possible benefits to be gained from the delegation of work and (b) coordinate
and monitor the work in such a way that the organization achieves its fundamental goals. In this
sense, “organizing” (as an administrative function) aims not only to select the most appropriate
method of organization but also to choose the appropriate structure for the internal organization.
Given that a vertical hierarchy is a fundamental feature in the structure and design of many
organizations, then, based upon the Fayol principles (classical administrative functions), the
distribution of work and delegation of authority may be considered necessary for the successful
and efficient performance of an organization (and hence educational performance) as long as the
hierarchical levels in the “pyramid” are restricted to as few as possible (Mullins, 2010). Keeping
the number of hierarchical levels to a minimum helps to boost the effects of delegating authority
and to reduce the likelihood of developing strict bureaucratic procedures and unnecessary work.
Based on the latter, it is intriguing to examine how the military is structured. It has (a) a high
strict hierarchy and implements a “tough” quality management process that focuses on services,
benchmarks, and processes (Rahman & Bullock, 2005), (b) sideways transfer of information
across the hierarchical levels since the execution and decision processes are interrelated (Mullins,
2010), and (c) a cohesive and coordinated leadership with a vision and a particular organizational
culture. Such a system will certainly provide useful insights for implementing a vertical
hierarchical structure in the more sensitive sector of education.
Indeed, Fayol’s theory constitutes a classical approach to management whereby the focus is more
on the rational organization of work, with clearly defined relations of authority and
administration, and less on the human factor. Of course, that does not mean that this approach
totally ignores the human aspect, but it does reduce it to a secondary issue as the theory attempts
to increase the efficiency of organizations (Saitis & Saiti, 2018, p. 8). It is also known that the
space within which organizations (particularly educational ones) operate has both a technical and
social dimension. While these elements may be complementary, one element cannot replace the
other (Dubrin, 1997; Mullins, 2010).
The orientation of modern managerial thinking on a theoretical and pluralistic research-based

context can be attributed to the complexity of the organizations (educational ones for current
purposes) and the fact that human behavior may be overlooked by specific theoretical
frameworks. What is certain is that in any managerial model to be implemented by an
organization, its leader (e.g., a school principal) cannot play the role of a bureaucratic master.
Rather, leaders need to coordinate the stakeholder community in their organization (school) and
be collegial supporters. Such a leader needs to have the managerial skills and abilities necessary
to effectively manage the most precious factor of an organization—its human resources.
The military sector is rather unique. For many countries it is the third most important sector,
though its degree of importance varies according to the geographical position of a country (in
terms of its vulnerability to a danger or crisis). The organization structure of this sector is
interesting as it follows a rather strict hierarchy and requires discipline, cohesion, and visionary
Page 3 of 24
leadership (Thompson, 1984). As in every organization/sector, its subsystems have to be

cooperative and interrelated. The integration in military organizations is crucially important,
more so than for any other organization. Indeed, the control function, the teamwork, the
information process, and the clarity of goals all have to be interrelated in an effective way to
achieve an optimal performance.
Military organizations around the world are bureaucratic to a certain degree and follow a
hierarchical structure. This is also the case in Greece, where the central organs are responsible for
all managerial issues while the General Chief of the Greek Army (Central Administration)
ultimately controls the decision-making process for every administrative issue.
According to the Greek Army General Staff (2002, pp. 7–8, cited by Kafantogia, Parsalidou &
Tsimpidi, 2016), a leader in the military sector is a person who has the ability to influence,
challenge, and direct his or her subordinates, so that they are completely committed to carrying
out the task assigned to them. It is important to emphasize that if necessary, the state can
empower the military commander to lead youth into battle—a power which is not granted to
anyone else. Such an act carries the utmost responsibility, requiring a high degree of confidence
in the commander to achieve his goal under challenging and unpredictable circumstances. Among
other things, military leaders empower the body of, and strengthen the spirit of, their troops,
while giving them encouragement. A military leader is also responsible for adhering to the rules
of discipline and military conduct (Dimitroulis, 2015). Military leaders ensure that their
subordinates are properly treated within the military structure, that they are provided with
proper education, and that they are given the best possible living conditions (Box, 2012).
At a strategic level, the leaders in the military sector are the chiefs of staff. The leadership at this
level should have appropriate capabilities that have been adequately developed and, above all, be
able to assess data and make decisions under pressure. They are responsible for shaping the
organizational structure of the army and for deciding priorities regarding the allocation of
resources.
At the same time, leadership at the strategic level prepares the future route for the troops to
follow, and is responsible for shaping the future vision of the organization. Finally, we should
mention that this kind of leadership should show appropriate trust in its subordinates, knowing
precisely their actions so that the strategy that is planned and followed does not deviate from the
real vision of the organization (Greek Army General Staff, 2002, pp. 2–3, cited by Kafantogia et
al., 2016).
With reference to the Greek context, Greece is a country situated in the Balkan area and has a
strategic geographical position. Traditionally in the past, Greek governments have paid much
attention to the military sector. For a country in Greece’s position it is extremely important to
perform effectively, and in order for this to happen, leadership and all managerial functions have
to be interrelated in an efficient manner.
Page 4 of 24
Thus, using factor analysis, the purpose of this article is to identify the factors of satisfaction
regarding this type of organizational structure and leadership, as experienced by the Greek
military sector. Moreover, this study analyzes the concept of structure in management science
and how it may enhance the effective performance of organizations.
Theoretical Approach: Hierarchical Structure and Leadership
In every typical organization the managerial element of structure is evident. Interrelationships

and interactive actions develop as the organization tries to succeed in achieving its aims. The
structure of any organization has three main characteristics: the division of work, the extent of
control, and the delegation of power. Depending on the direction of power delegation, the
distribution of duties can be either hierarchical (vertical) or horizontal.
The element of structure—that is, a shape to the internal relations and interactions—is in every
organization (public or private) so that goals can be feasibly achieved. The element of structure,
that is, the form taken by internal relations and interactions, exists in every organization (public
and private) so that goals can be feasibly achieved. The rational plan of both human and material
resources and the scientific organization of work are the basic elements for achieving the best
possible result. The word “organization” has the following meanings:
The action of “organizing” (i.e., the arrangement and implementation of tasks designed to
achieve certain goals). Hence the act of organizing is regulatory. This regulation may
manifest itself in the human relations of a team (as they aim to achieve common targets)
and in the determination and delegation of power and responsibility among team members.
It could also regulate the way humans interact with material resources. In both cases,
“organizing” is one of the most important functions of management.
The resulting outputs of “organizing” such as the instruction and guidance given by an
organizational chart for the management and the correlation of duties between different job
positions, etc. Hence, when we say an organization has been organizing we could also mean
that the organization has established a structure for its activities and a hierarchy of
accountability to clarify the work and duties of each employee.
The physical entity of a school, hospital, etc. which acts in a societal context.
Within this framework, organizations have three common characteristics: staff, objective aims to
be achieved, and the organization’s structure. Regarding the latter characteristic, the principles
and the rules of an organization determine its structure. The structure defines all the lines of
power and communication among the organizational members required to facilitate the
coordination of all the activities for the realization of the organization’s aims (Levin & White,
1961; Zavlanos, 1998; Zevgaridis, 1983). The structure is necessarily dynamic since each
organization is obliged to make the appropriate adjustments to changes coming from the general
or external environment. Hence an organization’s structure is recreated by its staff (the
organization’s members) on a continuous basis, according to their perceptions and their
evaluation of the organization’s external or general environment (Child, 1972; Ranson, Hinings,
& Greenwood, 1980; Tirole, 1986; Tolbert & Hall, 2016).
Page 5 of 24
According to the open system theory, an organization’s external or general environment is one of
the most important factors that influence its design and structure. Indeed, the open system
theory states there are three major factors that exert influence on an organization’s structure and
thus impact upon its choice of strategy (Child, 1972; Fredrickson, 1986; Scott & Davis, 2016). One
is environment though it should be mentioned that the extent to which structure impacts upon an
organization’s choice of strategy is heavily dependent on isolated aspects of the organization
(Fredrickson, 1986). The remaining two factors are technology and organization size. In regard to
technology, this factor generally has a weak impact on structure because it is the tools and
policies of human resource management that balance and facilitate human abilities concerning
technology. The third factor, namely, organization size, according to Child (1972), cannot be
considered a key factor influencing an organization’s structure since an organization’s activities
may be divided into core and support activities while the influence of each type of activity varies
according to the perceived role of the activity. Moreover, an organization’s activities are closely
linked to its technological level. Given the foregoing factors, it would be sensible for the members
of an organization to develop a strategy that integrates elements from both its internal and
external environment. However, by considering the fact that the flow of information within an
organization is not perfect, people from different levels of the hierarchy with different work
specializations should be involved in making decisions. This may cause the decision-making
process to deviate from the organization’s dominant structure (Carter, 1971; Hinds & Kiesler,
1995; Quinn, 1980). A structure is neither good nor bad. It is either enabling or coercive. Given
that rules and structures are inevitable for any type of organization, the question is whether the
structure of an organization facilitates constructive cooperation processes or not. Regardless of
whether an organization belongs to an educational or some other system, it remains a social
organization that operates within a wider environment. Thus, organizations can be considered to
be part of a system that is as either open or closed. An open system is one in which the
organization is in direct contact with its environment and has at the same time a mechanism to
control the nature and quantity of inputs and outputs. On the contrary, a closed system is one that
does not interact with its environment. Here, “environment” refers to all the elements and
relationships that act on the system without belonging to it.
Military organizations may operate on the basis of strict rules and a rigid structure and so belong
to a relatively more closed system than educational organizations, which are in constant
interaction with their social environment. However, both types of organization operate within an
environment comprised of many subsystems that are in constant interdependence and
interaction with each other. When, for example, the objectives and needs of a subsystem of a
school (as in other types of organizations) conflict with those of another subsystem, then a state
of imbalance is created in the educational organization. Indeed, the existence of subsystems
increases the complexity of an organization (whether a school unit or a military organization)
and this prevents it from operating in a steady state of equilibrium. Given that the carrying out of
managerial tasks is of continuous and primary importance, an appropriate leadership style with
an enabling structure can boost effective communication channels and cultivate trust among
organizational members. In this way, the flow of administrative work is facilitated without loss of
manpower, service costs are lower and the organization’s management can function more
efficiently overall.
Page 6 of 24
Based on the above, there is a clear relationship between the leadership and structure of an
organization. The leadership of an organization is an integral part of its structure since it is
visible at every level of its hierarchy. Indeed, in his analysis of the link between organizational
theory and quality management, Brown (2014) has outlined five key features for sustainability in
business excellence, among which are its leadership and processes. The remaining three are:
people, strategy, and communication. So leadership and structure determine the creation of
strategic decisions, the activation and guidance of human resources for the induction of
conscious actions, and the process of influencing the behavior of the organizational members
(people) through effective communication and a two-way flow of information to achieve the best
possible organizational performance.
According to Lampel, Mintzberg, Quinn, and Ghoshal (2014) the six key parts of the organization
include the strategic apex (the manager, who has the overall responsibility and oversight of the
organization) and links with the base of the organization core via the middle-line managers. Key
elements of leadership are communication channels, the development of trust between
organizational members, and the building of a collaborative and harmonious climate. As to
whether the structure of an organization is enabling or coercive, again this depends on the
leadership since the organization structure is designed based on the internal organs of an
organization. Indeed, a leader must show the same concern for the outcome of the job as they do
for staff interests. There are no stable governance and leadership rules that can be applied
successfully in all circumstances when exercising managerial authority. However, what we may
support is that the way leadership is exercised affects the ability of the organizational structure to
develop positive communication channels and trusting relations among organizational members.
On the other hand, the style of leadership depends to a large extent on the personality and
experience of the leader, the moods of the staff members, and the circumstances of the
organization. Indeed, as Lampel et al. (2014, p. 201) have reported, proper leadership style is an
“all depends situation.” Hence, structure and leadership are interdependent concepts.
According to the relevant literature (Bush, 2008; Harris, 2005, 2010; House, 1971; Koontz, O’
Donnell, & Weihrich, 1982; Mullins, 2010; Papa, English, Davidson, Culver, & Brown, 2013;
Williams & Johnson, 2004; Yukl, 2002) there are three main styles of leadership:
Authoritative leadership. Here, the leader plays a dominant role in decision-making and
strives for obedience from staff members. The main characteristics of strict leaders is that
they use fear to intimidate, are dogmatic in their relations with staff members, rarely justify
their orders, and are reluctant to accept proposals that are contrary to their views.
Democratic or participatory leadership. According to this style, the leader may proceed to
make decisions after a fruitful dialogue with staff members. This style of leadership includes
three types of participatory leaders: consensual, consultative, and democratic. Consensual
leaders encourage an issue to be discussed among team members and then make a decision
that reflects the overall view of the team. All members who are involved in the consequences
of a decision will have the opportunity to provide data. A decision is not final until all
involved members agree. Consultants have regular meetings with their staff members in
order to reach a decision. Democratic leaders allow their staff to contribute ideas and to
participate in the decision-making process, while retaining overall control.
Page 7 of 24
Loose leadership. According to this type, the manager transfers all power and control to the
staff and acts as the information provider to staff members.
Leadership is not just a personality trait or a status symbol but also requires certain tasks to be
performed. In practice, in order for leaders to be effective, they need to (Child, 2005; Dubrin,
1997; Naslund, 2013; Mullins, 2010; Saitis & Saiti, 2018):
Distribute the work appropriately and correctly among the organizational members.
Motivate organizational members to develop creative initiatives.
Have an open communication with the organizational members—not only for the purpose
of monitoring work performance but also to serve all staff communication needs.
Act as a factor for managerial development.
Handle any differences in the workplace in an efficient way.
Understand the current status of the organization (school, military, etc.).
Based on this, leadership is the interpersonal aspect of administration by which the members of
the community of an organization (in education, etc.) are led to a better understanding of their
roles to contribute more effectively to the realization of the organization’s goals. That is,
leadership will be effective when the requirements of the leader, members, and work converge.
In reality, the goals of an organization tend not to be achieved by senior management. As Lorange
(1980, p. 2, cited by Mintzberg, 2000, p. 161) said, “The CEO should not be the one who is deeply
involved with the detailed implementation of the strategic planning and control process . . . since
that person could not normally have the time or temperament to do that. Therefore, the CEO is
the designer of the system in a general sense.” Based on this, the effective functioning of an
organization (educational, etc.) is a collective work of all levels of the organizational structure. In
order for such an organization to achieve collectivity and a spirit of teamwork and cooperation,
the middle and lower levels of the hierarchical structure should feel confident, committed, and
dedicated. An organization such as a school is not impersonal. Its top leadership—the school
principal—designs the culture, strategy, and policies of the school. The design is not dependent
on the type of system (centralized or decentralized) since there is simply a separation between
decision-making and planning. For example, an educational system could be centralized with a
vertical hierarchical structure but with a “decentralized initiative,” as put by Jantsch (1969, p.
473, cited by Mintzberg, 2000, p. 165).Therefore, what matters is the creative initiative of the
members and the communication channels of the hierarchical structure.
As a means of attaining the highest possible level of quality performance within a dynamic
environment, Burns and Stalker (1961) identified two organizational approaches: the mechanistic
and the organic. The mechanistic approach is closely related to the bureaucratic model of Weber,
which is based on the rationale of collective actions and, by its nature, constitutes the most
effective organizational model, known as the “ideal type” of organization. The mechanistic
approach has a more impersonal orientation in organizational relations, putting emphasis on
process, control, rules, and formalization (standardized features) and relates more closely to a
hierarchical structure. The organic approach has a more personal orientation in organizational
Page 8 of 24
relations, focusing on collective effort, teamwork, knowledge sharing, the organization’s values
and culture, and motivating members to work more efficiently. Burns and Stalker (1961)
supported the view that an organization (of any size) that functions in a dynamic environment
with fewer hierarchical levels and less formalization but with more flexibility, innovation, and
creativity will be better able to adjust to new environmental conditions and so would favor a more
organic approach. However, Stinchcombe (1965) indicated that less formalization in an
organization may enhance the sense of uncertainty due to role ambiguity among organizational
members and the lack of unity of thought in the organization, and so favored the mechanistic
approach. Sine, Mitshhashi, and Kirsch (2006) distinguished organizations according to their
development stage. Based on this classification, they suggested that for an organization at an
early stage of development, the formal structure would be more beneficial for their
organization’s response to environmental dynamics. On the other hand, mature organizations
would benefit from more flexibility, less formal control, and an emphasis on a sense of
responsibility among lower hierarchical levels (through creative initiatives) which would increase
employees’ interest in their work and result in a higher levels of qualitative performance.
Within this framework, Lampel et al. (2014) argue that an organization is shaped by six key
factors, namely, a pull to lead, a pull to cooperate, a pull to rationalize, a pull to balkanize, a pull
to professionalize, and pulling together, which are all interrelated. When the environment in
which an organization (a school, for example) operates favors one of these six factors, then that
particular factor becomes the key to designing its structure. Thus, the tendency is for one of these
six basic factors to shape the conditions under which an organization will function, and
determines its structure. Hence, the managerial function of “organizing” is strongly related to
the organization’s ideology and culture so that it may configure itself to a particular type of
structure.
The various interpretations of the term “organizing” led to much discussion among researchers
about its definition. Allen (1958) and Mintzberg (1979, 1983, cited by Lyles & Schwenk, 1992, p.
158) considered “organizing” to be the process which determines and arranges the work that will
be executed by staff in an optimal way while at the same time determining and distributing
responsibility and power among the team members. Others such as Zacharis (1985) considered
that “organizing” pre-supposes the determination of a target and the appropriate interaction
between various production factors to facilitate a team effort toward the implementation of the
organization’s aims. Finally, other researchers such as Barnard (1938), Robey and Sales (1994),
Kast and Rosenzweig (1972), and so on, considered “organizing” to be an open system that
consists of different elements (staff, machines, buildings, etc.) which are interrelated and capable
of fulfilling a certain function. In any case, we may underline that despite any difficulties in
precisely defining the word “organizing,” it remains a reality, an unavoidable human need for
cooperation—a cooperation that is more effective if it involves a specific target that needs to be
achieved in a certain timeframe and has a structure and boundaries so that it can be separated
from the external environment.
In order for an organization (educational) to use the organizing function in an efficient way and
perform effectively, it should:
Page 9 of 24
Be well-designed/-programmed regardless of whether the design/program is for the staff of

the organization or for adjusting the organization’s structure to new environmental
changes.
Clarify the structure and communication flow between the different levels of management.
Delegate power to the lower levels of the hierarchy in a responsible manner
Avoid excessive bureaucracy.
Hierarchical Pyramid of an Organization
First, we may note that an organization with a low monitoring limit (span of management) and
many administrative levels gives rise to a structure that is highly hierarchical. On the other hand,
as these limits increase, the administrative levels become restricted and hence the hierarchical
structure is flatter.
In regard to the optimal span of management, the expert opinion of the researchers in
management science varies. For some researchers, managers with a limited number of
subordinates could better execute their management duties because they would have more time
for one-to-one communication, guidance, and control.
In contrast, many researchers support the view that a flatter pyramid, in combination with an
upper level of decentralization, is more conducive to the development of independent skills,
initiatives, and a willingness to participate in the decision-making process.
The structure is based upon the principle of echeloning different power levels where power is
channeled through appropriate imposed channels (Bantaloukas, 1964, p. 58). In practice, the
central line of this linear structure may have different forms, according to the type of
organizational structure or system being created, to facilitate the managerial work of an
organization.
The function of delegation is a two-way process and involves two parties, namely, the superior
and the subordinate. Certainly the manager (the upper level of power) entrusts power, duty, and
responsibility to the subordinate, but the manager retains control and remains responsible for
getting the job done (Mullins, 2010). The delegation of power is not something new. Indeed it is a
relatively common problem among organizations, especially those increasing in size and those
that are already quite large (Saiti & Saitis, 2012). The effective and efficient delegation of power
facilitates the process of achieving the desired outcome.
Due to the relatively large size of public organizations, they usually adopt a hierarchical
organizational structure that follows a simple and direct chain of command whereby the
subordinate accepts guidelines and orders only from their superior manager. Hence, duties are
delegated from the upper to the lower levels of the hierarchical structure. This “pyramid
organization” is characterized by an echelon arrangement (which gives the impression of a
pyramid). It is the simplest type of work distribution and is based upon the Fayol principles,
namely, the unity of administration and hierarchical scale (Mullin, 2010; Saiti & Saitis, 2012).
Page 10 of 24
Some researchers (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Covin & Stevin, 1989; Merton, 1968) have found that
extensive formal control has a negative influence on an organization’s success. The latter
suggests that in order for an organization to win the relational trust of its members, the organic
approach would be more appropriate since it emphasizes teamwork and creativeness. Also,
through this more humanitarian approach, the organization is likely to achieve higher levels of
qualitative performance. On the contrary, other researchers (David & Han, 2003; Dekker, 2004;
Galbraith, 1977; Gulati & Singh, 1998; O’ Toole & Meier, 2003; Stinchcombe, 1965; Williamson,
1999) have claimed that the mechanistic approach, through formal control, helps to enhance
relational trust among its members and reduce environmental risk.
While at first sight the organic approach may appear to be more appropriate for educational
organizations (such as schools), the mechanistic approach is equally important for developing
and upgrading the quality of the educational services because it provides the necessary tools and
facilitates the process. No matter the type of the organization (whether it is learning-based or
not) the utilization of knowledge and the development and sharing of new knowledge is
absolutely important for qualitative outcomes. For this reason, both approaches are deemed
necessary (Brown, 2014, p. 185).
We should not forget that each approach has advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, each
approach is the result of many variables, such as the composition of an organization’s
subcultures and the prominent organizational factor that shows thorientation/size/environment/
and so on of the organization. Hence, the decision to implement one organizational approach
over another is not made because it provides a perfect solution but simply because the chosen
approach is more likely to yield better results.
There is no specific structure that has a purely positive influence on organizational performance.
Therefore, it would seem rational to have a “balance” between the two approaches, according to
the circumstances and situations of a given organization. However, it is also true that an
organization’s success heavily depends on the perception of a “common good”—the key phrase
for efficiency, quality, and effectiveness. The cultivation of a “common good” in an organization
is the leader’s job. As Schein (2004, p. 270) put it, leaders should communicate culture with the
understanding that they do not have a choice about whether or not to communicate, only about
the extent to which they should manage what they communicate. Indeed, communication is a
vital feature of leadership, as it is a framework for establishing an organization’s values as well as
a constructive organizational climate and culture.
Methodology
Primary sources of data have been used in this study. In particular, anonymous questionnaires
were administered to military staff in all seven geographical administrative divisions of Greece.
Questionnaires were sent to employees in the Greek military sector in May 2015 (250 total) and
collected at the end of July 2015. Of those, 150 questionnaires were sufficiently rich for analysis—
a response rate of 60%. The questionnaires were distributed to officers and non-commissioned
officers at all hierarchical levels of the Greek army.
Page 11 of 24
The questionnaire was designed after the reading and reviewing of the relevant literature and
consists of two parts. The first part consists of personal and professional characteristics such as
gender, educational level, position in military service, and so on. The second part includes 45
statements to which respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement by using the
following scale: 1 = not at all, 2 = rarely, 3 = often, 4 = moderately often, 5 = always. The statistical
analyses used in this research provided the principal components for factor analysis and this
method was applied to the original statements regarding the behavior style of their superior
manager.
Findings
According to the empirical results, the vast majority of the respondents (73.3%) were male;
26.7% were women. Regarding family status, the vast majority (78.0%) were married, 21.3% were
single, and 0.7% were divorced. A third of the respondents (33.3%) stated that they did not have
children, 24.0% had 2 children, 23.3% had 1 child, 15.3% had 3 children, 2.7% had 4 children,
0.7% had 5 children, and one person had 11 children.
The largest proportion of the sample (41.3%) had 11 to 20 years of experience in the military
sector, 38% stated 21 to 30 years of experience, 12% had up to 10 years of working experience in
the sector and only 8.7% stated a work experience of over 30 years. With reference to their
present duty, the largest proportion (33.3%) stated they worked as administrators, 23.3% stated
they worked in a military school or some other activity in the military sector, and finally 20.0%
worked in the field of duty.
Regarding their rank in the military services, 34.0% were captains, 28.7% were majors, 24.0%
were lieutenant colonels, 6.75% were lieutenants, 4.05% were commanders, and 2.7% were
sublieutenants.
Regarding the educational level of the respondents, the largest proportion (46.0%) stated that
they were graduates of secondary education, 32.0% were university graduates, 19.7% held a
master’s degree, and 1.3% were holders of a doctorate. With reference to the years of experience
at their current service level, 26.7% stated 2 years, 20.0% 4 years, 18.0% 3 years, 14.7% 5 years,
11.3% 1 year, 5.3% 6 years, and 2.0% 16 years, while the remainder were equally split (0.6%)
between 8 years, 10 years, and 14 years. When questioned about the time period, on average, that
passed between transfers leading up to the position currently held, over half of the respondents
(52.7%) stated 3 years; 23.3% mentioned 4 years; 10.7%, 2 years; 6.7%, 6 years; 2.7%, 5 years;
2.0%, 8 years; 1.3%, 7 years, and only 0.6% transferred every 10 years.
Regarding whether or not they had received any training, two-thirds of the sample (66.7%)
replied positively and the remaining 33.3% stated that they had not received any training. Of
those who had, the vast majority (79.2%) had received their training in the army while the
remainder were trained in other organizations such as municipalities or private schools. In regard
to the knowledge of a language other than Greek (their native language), the vast majority
(86.0%) replied positively and the remaining 14.0% responded negatively. The largest proportion
Page 12 of 24
(41.1%) stated that they know English to an excellent level, 31.8% to a very good level, and 18.6%
to a satisfactory level. Of those who can speak English, 38.7% held a certificate in the language
whereas 61.3% did not.
The application of factor analysis resulted in the extraction of five factors that have an Eigenvalue
above 1. Of these, five factors were selected which provides an explanation for 70.68% of the total
sample. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was 0.92. Table 1 presents the variables
included in each factor and factor loadings.
Table 1. Variables Included in Each Factor and Factor Loadings
Factors Variables Loadings
Factor 1 He/she helps me as a return for my efforts 0.650

Transformational leadership, leaders with
He/she re-examines all critical points that are 0.668
a cooperative, supportive, and creative
considered crucial and assesses whether or not
spirit
they are appropriate
.
He/she looks for different perspectives when there 0.664
are problems
He/she talks positively about the future 0.776
“The manager makes me feel proud of the 0.840

cooperation we have”
He/she adequately clarifies the specific targets and 0.729

aims
The manager works in a way that gains my respect 0.856
He/she shows a feeling of strength and self- 0.741

confidence
He/she has an exciting vision for the future 0.714
He/she motivates me to look for different 0.803

perspectives
He/she helps me to develop my capabilities and 0.855

potentials
He/she suggests new approaches with which I can 0.835

fulfill a project
Page 13 of 24
He/she puts emphasis on how important it is to 0.729

have a sense of cooperation in the mission
The manager expresses satisfaction when the 0.796

expectations “are being met”
The manager expresses confidence when the aims 0.844

are achieved
He/she responds effectively to my work-related 0.851

needs
He/she uses satisfactory methods of leadership 0.867
The manager encourages me to try to achieve more 0.813

than I even expected of myself
He/she represents me effectively at higher 0.794

hierarchy levels
The manager cooperates in a satisfactory way 0.815
He/she talks in an enthusiastic way about the needs 0.722

that have to be met
He/she determines and clarifies the significance of 0.787

the task with a strong sense of “the aim”
The manager dedicates time for teaching and 0.686

guidance
The manager clarifies the expected results from the 0.741

achievement of the aims
He/she puts the group’s interests above his/her 0.703

personal interests
The manager increases my desire for success 0.882
He/she responds effectively to the demands of the 0.798

work
He/she increases my desire to keep trying 0.856
Page 14 of 24
He/she leads an effective group 0.849
Factor 2 The manager avoids getting involved when -0.457

Loose leadership important issues arise
He/she is absent when we need him/her -0.664
He/she does not doing anything until the situation -0.674

has become complicated
He/she has the attitude that when something is -0.736

broken, do not fix it
He/she follows the approach that only when a -0.727

problem requires urgent attention does he/she
start to take action for a solution
He/she is slow to find a solution to urgent issues -0.649
He/she avoids making decisions -0.664
Factor 3 He/she confronts me, comparing me to others as a 0.738

A condescending, self-centered approach person with different needs, abilities and ambitions
with the lack of a cooperative spirit and
He/she always refers to his/her important values 0.575
the over-promotion of self
and attitudes
He/she confronts me more as an individual and less 0.775

as a member of the group
Factor 4 He/she does not intervene until the problem is 0.554

A leader who avoids responsibilities serious
The manager focuses his/her attention on 0.720

bureaucratic mistakes, exceptions, and deviations
from law
The manager focuses his/her attention on the 0.506

confrontation of mistakes, complaints and failures
He/she thinks about all the ethical consequences of 0.564

the decisions
Page 15 of 24
Factor 5 He/she suggests that I should be careful when I am 0.725

A leader who has a bureaucratic attitude not responding to standards
and focuses only on formal procedures
He/she monitors every mistake that is made 0.786
and administrative details
Discussion
The factor analysis resulted in five groups of statements while all items included in the first factor
concerning transformational leadership had high loadings, accounting for 70.68% of the total
sample. This strongly hints at a need for a leadership who emphasize cooperation and cohesion
among the working group. This type of leadership, namely, transformational, promotes the
delegation of power and cooperation through the collective decision-making process. According
to this type of leadership, all problems may be solved by listening to different perspectives and
attitudes through an interactive process. The use of power by superiors should only be to facilitate
the process and not to impose their opinions on their colleagues (Glover, 1996). The meaning of
leadership is closely linked to the appropriate use of authority/power to influence the behavior of
the organization’s members, which is the driving force for achieving the organization’s goals
(Kotter, 1990; Northouse, 2007). The leader should adopt the role of visionary, strategist,
facilitator, and contributor, and maintain a balance between these roles in order to be effective.
It is apparent, therefore, that even in a rather strict hierarchical organizational structure such as
the military sector or heavy centralized and bureaucratic educational systems, the need for
cooperation and teamwork is evident. It is also evident that the motivation for work and a creative
working environment are important elements of leadership style. According to the results, this
type of leadership received a high rating in terms of the personal attitudes of military employees.
Indeed, this kind of leadership is not based on the satisfaction of personal interest but on a
common vision and the satisfaction of group interests (Miller & Miller, 2001). Relations among
colleagues are built gradually and go through several stages, but they then become the platform
upon which a vision and a positive and constructive culture are created. Moreover, according to
Burns (2003), transformational leadership leads managers (superiors) and subordinates to
greater levels of ethics, enthusiasm, and motivation or, as Bush (2008, p. 283) put it,
management is associated with positional authority while leadership may be exercised by those
without formal management roles.
Therefore, if organizations are to enhance employees’ motivation and team spirit then
employees’ perceptions are an important tool (Rahman & Bullock, 2005; Saiti, 2007; Tirole, 1986;
Wright & Davis, 2001). Within this framework, individuals who are working in a rather strict
working environment, such as in the military or in an education system that is heavily centralized
and bureaucratic, have quite different experiences from those in other sectors that do not use the
same hierarchical structure.
Page 16 of 24
People working in the military services are used to discipline and a high sense of power and
control. Leadership is without doubt the most essential part of any organization and is the key for
the efficient performance and continued development of an organization. In the field of military
services or heavy centralized and bureaucratic educational systems, employees do not enjoy
much autonomy and freedom in making decisions while their behaviors are based on norms and
rules defined by the superior authority.
Flexible networks, open communication processes, and leaders with vision and a creative,
constructive, and positive spirit favorably affect employees’ feelings and enhance innovation and
fluidity (Saiti, 2012; Tirole, 1986). Taking into consideration that a highly hierarchical system
(such as the military sector and heavy centralized and bureaucratic educational system) may
adversely affect incentives to exert effort as well as the efficiency of communication channels,
one may consider the importance of the contribution of a leader and the development of
leadership as an acute issue that has a significant impact upon staff morale and efficient
performance, especially in these types of hierarchical structure sectors.
Additionally, it is evident that leadership behaviors such as formal/bureaucratic tendencies, a

lack of cooperation and the promotion of self-interests are not welcomed by military employees
since, according to the empirical results, those that experienced such behaviors gave their leaders
a much lower rating. This is an important outcome, especially if one considers that a major
drawback of maintaining a hierarchical structure with many levels is its inherent inflexibility
which impedes cooperation and coordination. Indeed, this result is being confirmed by other
relevant research studies such as those by Lyles and Schwenk (1992), Mintzberg (1979, 1983, cited
by Lyles & Schwenk, 1992, p. 158), Mullins (2010), and Wang and Ahmed (2003).
The results of this study suggest that in a hierarchical structure it would be more beneficial to
establish a positive interdependence and effective interaction among the different departments
to increase flexibility and facilitate the decision-making process. Thus, as regards leadership in
such types of organization, the emphasis should be on the interactions and the rational
delegation of power and division of work. Although the adoption of objective criteria, sufficient
clarification of the aims, and systematic analysis of the problems are crucial elements in all kinds
of organizations that need to be considered very carefully, in military organizations the
significance of those is certainly higher still. The bureaucratic attitude in a sector that is strictly
hierarchical such as a highly centralized educational system may restrict the efficacy of the
decision-making process as bottom-up communication flow is limited. For this reason, the
adoption of a cohesive and cooperative leadership behavior by superiors in the military sector
would be more effective.
Indeed, the relevant literature converged on the conclusion that relational trust among an
organization’s members is the key for outstanding performance and organizational
sustainability. However, the building of trust among members is based on the flow of information
and a continuous interaction (Dekker, 2004; Gulati & Singh, 1998; Saitis & Saiti, 2018). Structure
and control may facilitate the establishment of relational trust since it can help the organization
to better understand the interdependency of members’ actions by monitoring the formation of
relationships. However, according to Dekker (2004), three things should be considered when
Page 17 of 24
discussing the relationship between formal control and relational trust. The first is that this
relationship is not linear, as in every kind of relationship. The second is related with the
environmental uncertainty. Trust among members is crucial if the organization is to have the
ability to respond in an efficient manner to any environmental changes and deal with the
propensity of risk. Within this framework, it is the level of risk that will influence the strength of
this relationship. The third is that formal control contributes significantly to the division and
specialization of work and to the coordination of the members’ actions. It is true that rules and
formal control limit the creativity and imagination that a person can exercise in order to shape
their role and responsibilities. However, from the organization’s side, it is also true that members
cannot be completely free in their work because, as an interdependent part of the organization,
they are obliged to “follow the rules.” Hence the efficiency of organizational members depends
more on the real content of the rules which determine their role within the organization and less
on the type of organizational structure.
This study is not without limitations. Although the sample covers a wide spectrum of Greece’s
military regions, this study only identifies the factors that affect employees’ perceptions and
their satisfaction with the leadership style of their superiors from a sector that is strictly
hierarchical. Hence, a further investigation involving data collected from other sectors
(particularly organizations that have a less hierarchical structure) would be needed to compare
and confirm the results. Also, data from a highly centralized educational system such as the Greek
one would be beneficial to explore other potentially significant differences in employees’ ratings
and to confirm the results.
The primary aim of an organization is to improve the quality of its services. In theory, a proper
distribution of work and power brings changes in terms of organization, management, staff
selection, economics, and control that lead (one way or another) to an improvement in the
services provided. However, there are many variables which interact between the managerial
mechanism and the services provided, such as the culture and attitude of the organization, team
support, timeframe, motivation, and so on. In this regard, Sharpe (1996, p. 7) supported the view
that a particular structure may “provide the possibility but not the guarantee for the quality” It is
the efficiency of the main factors which determine whether or not the quality and the results will
be improved (Hanson, 1998).
As a strict hierarchy is closely linked with rules, rigid structures, and controls, it is essential not
to immediately associate the hierarchy with a negative impact on job performance because the
issue is not the hierarchy—whether strict or not—but the kind of hierarchy, which depends on
how leaders perform their leadership duties and how they behave toward their subordinates. A
positive culture and climate within an organization is based on the perception of an enabling
structure (Child, 1972; Saiti, 2015; Tirole, 1986). Only when the leaders are “enabling” may they
reinforce and empower the cooperation, innovation, trusting relations, teamwork, and
constructive culture (Cheng, 1994; Henkin, Cistone,& Dee, 2000; Hoy & Sweetland, 2001). Hence,
this study supports the view that by ensuring the enabling of leaders even in highly hierarchical
systems, such as the military one, and placing a more balanced emphasis on structure and people,
the levels of quality, efficiency, and effectiveness in performance could be increased, bringing the
organization to constructive improvement and growth.
Page 18 of 24
Conclusions
This study deals with the hierarchical structure of organizations and attempts to identify the level
of satisfaction with this rigid organizational structure and style of leadership while, based on
empirical results, it analyzes the concept of an organization’s structure and its influence on the
effectiveness and efficiency of an organization’s performance.
According to the relevant literature, the interrelationships in any type of organization constitute
a crucially significant factor in determining performance. This is perhaps not surprising since it is
essentially all about human relations. The structure will not have any impact on performance if
relations among the organizational members are strong and the organizational culture is
positive. Ultimately it is people who achieve the performance and establish the organization’s
structure. After all, organizations are not made accidently or emerge out of nowhere (Schein,
2004). An organization’s culture provides the basis for building its organizational structure—one
that reflects the purpose, actions, and mission of the organization. Indeed, the culture of an
organization exists from the very beginning of the organization’s creation while its structure is
something that is developed throughout its lifespan. Given the latter, the influence of leadership
is crucially significant.
It is evident from the above analysis that an organization’s structure plays a significant role in an
organization’s performance and influences, to a great extent, the success and effectiveness of the
organization. However, in order for the structure to contribute positively to the organization’s
performance, an appropriate and balanced emphasis on formal requirements (design, rules, etc.)
and on the human dimension of the organization is absolutely necessary. Indeed, the productive,
positive, and mutual relations among an organization’s members and across its hierarchical
levels, at least in the long term, will have a positive influence on the organization’s efficiency
(Saiti, 2015; Tirole, 1986). Any obstacles or boundaries that hinder constructive cooperation
among members across different levels of the hierarchy will harm the organization’s
performance. An atmosphere of cooperation, mutuality, and positivity in the relations of
members facilitates productive teamwork and is the basis for ensuring that an organization’s
structure has a positive influence on performance, even in vertical hierarchical structures where
the lower and middle level in the hierarchy do not enjoy certain levels of freedom in the shaping
of final decisions. Hence, what matters is not the pattern of the hierarchy (i.e., whether it is
vertical or flat) but whether it is an enabling or inhibitive structure (Henkin et al., 2000; Hoy &
Sweetland, 2001; Saiti, 2015). While it may be difficult for an organization to attain a perfect
structure, one thing is certain regarding the human element in the structure and should be
considered by organizations: “The human aspect in a business is vital: you can keep drawing squares
and lines, but within these squares you must have people and they must be deeply involved with the
business. If this does not happen, then the lines and squares and the diagrams mean nothing.” (Forte,
1986, p. 112 cited by Mullins, 2010, p. 552).
References
Allen, L. (1958). Management and organization. New York: McGraw Hill.
Page 19 of 24
Bantaloukas, K. V. (1964). Business organisation and administration. Athens, Greece: University of Piraeus (in Greek).
Barnard, C. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Box, J. E. (2012). Toxic leadership in the military profession. Carlisle, PA: Army War College.
Brown, A. (2014). Organisational paradigms and sustainability in excellence: from mechanistic approaches to learning
and innovations. International Journal of Quality and Services Sciences, 6(2/3), 181–190.
Βurns, J. (2003). Transforming leadership. New York: Atlantic Monthly.
Burns, T. C., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London, U.K.: Tavistock.
Bush, T. (2008). From management to leadership: Semantic or meaningful change? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 36(2), 271–288.
Carter, E. E. (1971). The behavioral theory of the firm and top level corporate decisions. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16(4), 413–428.
Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal’s leadership as a critical factor for school performance: Evidence from multi-levels of
primary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 299–317.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1),
1–22.
Child, J. (2005). Organization: Contemporary, principles and practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Covin, J., & Slevin, D. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic
Management Journal, 10(1), 75–88.
David, R., & Han, S. (2003). A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics. Strategic
Management Journal, 25(1), 39–58
Dekker, H.C. (2004). Control of inter-organizational relationships: Evidence on appropriation concerns and
coordination requirements. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, 27–49.
Dimitroulis, D. (2015). Military morality and leadership. Athens, Greece: Greek Army General Staff (in Greek).
Durbin, A. J. (1997). Essentials of management (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: SouthWestern College Press.
Forte, C. (Lord Forte). (1986). Forte. The autobiography of Charles Forte. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.
Fredrickson, J.W. (1986). The strategic decision process and organizational structure. Academy of Management Review,
11(1), 280–297.
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Glover, D. (1996). Leadership, planning and resource management in four very effective schools, Part one: Setting the
scene. School Organisation, 16(2), 135–148.
Page 20 of 24
Greek Army General Staff. (2002). Shaping leadership in the military army. Athens, Greece:Army General Staff (in
Greek).
Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation
concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781–814.
Hanson, E. M. (1998). The modern education bureaucracy and the process of change. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 11(3), 21–36.
Harris, A. (2005). Leading from the Chalk-face: An overview of school leadership. Leadership, 1(1), 73–87.
Harris, A. (2010). Distributed leadership: Evidence and implications. In T. Bush, L. Bell, & D. Middlewood (Eds.), The
principles of educational leadership & management (2nd ed.) (pp. 55–69). London: SAGE.
Henkin, A. B., Cistone, P. J., & Dee, J. R. (2000). Conflict management strategies of principals in site-based managed
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 142–158.
Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure and use of communication
technologies in a large organization. Organizational Science, 6(4), 373–394.
House, R. J. (1971, September). A path goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16,
321–338.
Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling school
structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 296–321.
Jantsch, E. (1969). (Ed.). Perspectives of planning. Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development.
Kafantoria, I., Parsalidou, A., & Tsimpidi, A. (2016). A theoretical approach of military leadership. Athens, Greece:
Institute of International Relations. (In Greek)
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General system theory: Applications for organisation and management.
Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465.
Koontz, H., O’ Donnell, C., & Weihrich, H. (1982). Management (7th ed.). London: McGraw Hill International.
Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change. How leadership differs from management. New York: Free Press.
Lampel, J., Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J. B., & Ghoshal, S. (2014). The strategy process, concepts, contexts, cases (5th ed.).
Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education.
Levine, S., & White, D. E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational
relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(4), 583–601.
Lorange, P. (1980). Corporate planning: an executive viewpoint. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lyles, M. A., & Schwenk, C. R. (1992). Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of
Management Science, 29(2), 155–174.
Merton, R. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press
Page 21 of 24
Miller, T. W., & Miller, J. M. (2001). Educational leadership in the new millennium: a vision for 2020. International
Journal Leadership in Education, 4(2), 181–89.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around organizations (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (2000). The rise and fall at strategic planning. Harlow, U.K.: Pearson Education.
Mullins, L.J. (2010). Management and organisational behavior (9th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Naslund, D. (2013). Lean and six-sigma—Critical success factors revisited. International Journal of Quality and Service
Sciences, 5(1), 86–100
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
O’ Toole, L. J. & Meier, K. J. (2003). Bureaucracy and uncertainty. In B. C. Burden (Ed.), Uncertainty in American politics
(pp. 98–117). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Papa, R., English, F., Davidson, F., Culver, M. K., & Brown, R. (2013). Contours of great leadership. The science, art and
wisdom of outstanding practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Rahman, S., & Bullock, P. (2005). Soft TQM, hard TQM and organizational performance relationships: An empirical
investigation. OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Science, 33(1), 73–83.
Ranson, S., Hinings, B., & Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25(1), 1–17.
Robey, D., & Sales, C. A. (1994). Designing organisations (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Saiti, A. (2007). Main factors of job satisfaction among primary school educators. Factor analysis of the Greek reality.
Management in Education, 21(2), 23–27.
Saiti, A. (2012). Leadership and quality management: An analysis of three key features of the Greek education system.
Quality Assurance in Education, 20(2), 110–138.
Saiti, A. (2015). Conflicts in schools, conflict management styles and the role of the school leader: A study among
Greek primary school educators. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 43(4), 582–609.
Saiti, A., & Saitis, C. (2012). Organisation and administration in education. Athens, Greece: Saiti (in Greek).
Saitis, C., & Saiti, A. (2018). Initiation of educators into educational management secrets. New York: Springer
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneeweiss, C. (1995). Hierarchical structures in organisations: A conceptual framework. European Journal of

Operational Research, 86(1), 4–31.
Page 22 of 24
Schneeweiss, C. (1998). Hierarchical planning in organisations: Elements of a general theory. International Journal of
Production Economics, 56–57, 547–556.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2016). Organizations and organizing. Rational, natural and open system perspectives. New
York: Routledge.
Sharpe, F. G. (1996). Towards a research paradigm on devolution. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(1), 4–23.
Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker formal structure and new venture
performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121–132.
Stinchcanbe, A. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. P. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–
193). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Thompson, H. L. (1984). High performing staff. Part I: What is it? Army Organizational Effectiveness Journal, 8(1), 7–15.
Tirole, J. (1986). Hierarchies and bureaucracies: On the role of collusion in organizations. Journal of Law, Economics &
Organizations, 2(2), 181–214.
Tolbert, P. S., & Hall, R. H. (2016). Organizations, structures, processes and outcomes (10th ed.). London and New York:
Routledge.
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2003). Structure and structural dimensions for knowledge-based organizations. Measuring
Business Excellence, 7(1), 51–62.
Williams, K., & Johnson, B. (2004). Introducing management: A development guide. London: Taylor & Francis.
Williamson, O. E. (1999). Strategic research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management
Journal, 20(12), 1087–1108
Wright, B. E., & Davis, B. S. (2001). Job satisfaction in the public sector: The role of the work environment. American
Review of Public Administration, 33(1), 70–90.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organisations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zacharis, E. (1985). History, organization and management of technical and professional education. Athens, Greece:
OEDB (in Greek).
Zavlanos, M. (1998). Management. Athens, Greece: Ellin (in Greek).
Zevgaridis, S. (1983). Organizational theory. Athens, Greece: Papazisi (in Greek).
Related Articles
Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Educational Institutions
Enabling School Structure
Page 23 of 24
Page 24 of 24

Hierarchical Organizational Structure and Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hierarchical Organizational Structure and Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hierarchical Organizational Structure and Leadership

Hierarchical Organizational Structure and Leadership

Keywords: hierarchical structure, leadership, organization planning, decision-making, military organizations,

Subjects: Educational Administration and Leadership

Introduction and Aims of the Study

Anticipation. Upper-level management, knowing the main characteristics of those at the

Instruction. In this stage, upper-level managers give instructions to lower-level

The orientation of modern managerial thinking on a theoretical and pluralistic research-based

leadership (Thompson, 1984). As in every organization/sector, its subsystems have to be

Theoretical Approach: Hierarchical Structure and Leadership

In every typical organization the managerial element of structure is evident. Interrelationships

Motivate organizational members to develop creative initiatives.

Act as a factor for managerial development.

Handle any differences in the workplace in an efficient way.

Understand the current status of the organization (school, military, etc.).

Be well-designed/-programmed regardless of whether the design/program is for the staff of

Delegate power to the lower levels of the hierarchy in a responsible manner

Avoid excessive bureaucracy.

Hierarchical Pyramid of an Organization

Table 1. Variables Included in Each Factor and Factor Loadings

Factors Variables Loadings

Factor 1 He/she helps me as a return for my efforts 0.650

He/she talks positively about the future 0.776

“The manager makes me feel proud of the 0.840

He/she adequately clarifies the specific targets and 0.729

The manager works in a way that gains my respect 0.856

He/she shows a feeling of strength and self- 0.741

He/she has an exciting vision for the future 0.714

He/she motivates me to look for different 0.803

He/she helps me to develop my capabilities and 0.855

He/she suggests new approaches with which I can 0.835

Factors Variables Loadings

He/she puts emphasis on how important it is to 0.729

The manager expresses satisfaction when the 0.796

The manager expresses confidence when the aims 0.844

He/she responds effectively to my work-related 0.851

He/she uses satisfactory methods of leadership 0.867

The manager encourages me to try to achieve more 0.813

He/she represents me effectively at higher 0.794

The manager cooperates in a satisfactory way 0.815

He/she talks in an enthusiastic way about the needs 0.722

He/she determines and clarifies the significance of 0.787

The manager dedicates time for teaching and 0.686

The manager clarifies the expected results from the 0.741

He/she puts the group’s interests above his/her 0.703

The manager increases my desire for success 0.882

He/she responds effectively to the demands of the 0.798

He/she increases my desire to keep trying 0.856

Factors Variables Loadings

He/she leads an effective group 0.849

Factor 2 The manager avoids getting involved when -0.457

He/she is absent when we need him/her -0.664

He/she does not doing anything until the situation -0.674

He/she has the attitude that when something is -0.736

He/she follows the approach that only when a -0.727

He/she is slow to find a solution to urgent issues -0.649

He/she avoids making decisions -0.664

Factor 3 He/she confronts me, comparing me to others as a 0.738

He/she confronts me more as an individual and less 0.775

Factor 4 He/she does not intervene until the problem is 0.554

The manager focuses his/her attention on 0.720

The manager focuses his/her attention on the 0.506

He/she thinks about all the ethical consequences of 0.564

Factors Variables Loadings