Vertical Structure and Horizontal Structure of Organizations Assignment

Vertical Structure and Horizontal Structure of Organizations - Assignment Example Horizontal structures involve lateral relations, such as liaison functions, task forces, frequent unplanned meetings, and the use of formalized integrator roles. The advantage of a horizontal structure is a possibility of liberal and informal communication. The disadvantage is that this structure is effective and possible only in small organizations. The decentralized decision-making process allows employees greater involvement and fast decision-making. The advantage of vertical structure is greater control and delegation of authority. The disadvantages are lack of flexibility, decision-making from the top, centralization of authority and bureaucratic control of all activities. The examples of a vertical structure are Ford Motor Company, Toyota and Microsoft. These organizations have centralization of all management functions and require a high level of lateral interdepartmental coordination and communication involving unplanned face-to-face meetings and mutual adaptation. Coordination of sequential technologies is best accomplished through plans and schedules, whereas coordination of pooled technologies can be accomplished by the use of stan dard operating procedures (Mullins 304).

The War in Vietnam Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

The War in Vietnam - Essay Example Chemical weapons such as Agent Orange were used against the Vietnamese. The images from this gruesome war were relayed into the sitting room of Americans by the television and newspapers drawing public condemnation and spurring public protest. It is the cost of the war, in terms of both financial resources committed and the massive loss of human life that finally turned the tide and made a majority of Americans eventually turn against the war. President Eisenhower justified U.S involvement in Vietnam with what he called the domino effect. He argued that if Vietnam fell to communism, many states would follow. United States was interested in stopping the spread of communism in Indochina and the South East Asia. Many citizens were not worried by what was described as a simple war whose victory was guaranteed. However, when the President Johnson sent ground troops, there was a lack of a clear policy or determinable goal which would define success. America was just interested in maintaini ng the status quo. On the other hand, they faced communists opponent who was well coordinated and which able to appeal to the support of the people. Ho Chi Minh the leader of the Vietnamese communist was a master of blending communism with nationalism, which won him the support of the people. ... The bone of contention of the protestors was discrimination and poverty. Yet the same government that was supposed to fight poverty was channeling the essential resources to fighting a war. As Dr Martin Luther King rightly put it â€Å"†¦and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such† (Martin Luther King, Jr., "Beyond Vietnam†). Consequently, that is why civil right movement joined the opponents of the war. They saw that the government had misplaced its priorities, spending on its military instead of the people. As reported, by 1967, civil rights leader Martin Luther King had become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, wh ich he deemed militaristic. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 -- a year to the day before he was murdered -- King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today"(Martin Luther King on Vietnam). In the meantime, another class of Americans got tired of the war due to the causalities inflicted on the American troops. When President Johnson sent troops to Vietnam, Americans were assured a quick victory. However, over the course of the war was losing more and more soldiers with the promised victory nowhere in sight. The public had not anticipated this. According to lecture notes, â€Å"the war was getting more massive than America