-4

I would like to ask more to comment on my "Are there any known rules or finding on who defines the number of the hierarchy levels in the team?" question. I really do not understand why it was put near immediately on hold. Have I hit some wasp nest by chance?

I expected to get a summary of reasons, why multiple layers of the hierarchy are in some cases worse of better. It is also important for me to understand the reasons why does the elite layer forms: is this something necessary or at least good for the group, company or just beneficial for the elite members.

These seem fully legitimate questions for me, with quite short and clear answers possible.

The example of the expected answers could be:

There are many different ways to structure a company, from flat to hierarchical, and everything in between or on a completely different scale. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and there's always lots of debate in the business world about which is best. There are multiple different opinions on this topic (copy/pasted from the answer below).

Or

Normally many levels of the hierarchy are used in the teams where a moderately good decision taken quickly is better than ideal decision taken too late (somewhat military).

Or

Normally levels of the hierarchy mean that many important skills required for this profession may only be acquired during long years of practice, standard education is not sufficient, so younger members with just standard education take the junior role. The longer the time to acquire all skills, the more levels of the hierarchy would be needed (somewhat medical).

Or

While flat hierarchy or single leader is often more or equally efficient, older team members have more influence so they achieve the formation of the elite layer (somewhat anarchistic).

Ok, without any sources all this is opinion based. But maybe there are sources? Studies? Some references could be given?

Why such answers are not possible and the question should instead be closed?

6

I think David's comment:

VTC as too broad. There are many different ways to structure a company, from flat to hierarchical, and everything in between or on a completely different scale. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and there's always lots of debate in the business world about which is best. There are far too many factors and opinions on this topic for us to be able to answer this question here.

along with the reason given on the question:

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.

are pretty clear answers to why this was closed.


I expected to get a summary of reasons, why multiple layers of the hierarchy are in some cases worse of better

I don't see how this would be an answer to your question, which currently is asking:

  • Apart from the leader that has a clear role (someone needs to organize the work process, a self-organizing group, even if possible, must work very differently), are there any known rules, principles which define the number of other levels in the team?
  • Is it such a thing as the possible to calculate optimal number of the hierarchy levels?
  • Or maybe the noticed regularity which kind of jobs or groups tend to have many/few levels?

It would be beneficial to focus your question on a real problem instead of effectively asking for an opinion poll of multiple topics. I think you might be able to reword it as, "how can I determine how many levels of hierarchy an organization should have?" though that's still very broad.

It feels like you are asking about a solution, too, if so I'd encourage you to take a read of the XY problem as from having read this meta question a few times and the linked question as well, it feels like we're missing the core problem motivating the question.

  • I added examples of the possible answers that I would have expected. – eee May 20 '17 at 12:00
2

You feel so strongly about it that you created a meta-meta post about it, here you go: your question is very hard to understand, which makes it less useful.

As I already pointed out in the comments, I read your question several times but could not understand what you were looking for. Starting off the question with "It is possible to imagine" was a needless use of "flowery" language, which made the rest of the sentence more confusing.

The question also features a single sentence paragraph, which is some 50 words long and includes two pairs of parenthesis. This is usually a good sign that the sentence is more complex than necessary.

Oh, and since you compelled me to unleash my imagination, I imagined your level 0 hierarchy to resemble a graph with two unconnected nodes. Then, as you can imagine (heh), your other extreme with each person at his own hierarchical level made me think of a degenerate binary tree (with only one child at each node), or in other words, a linked list.

Then you asked for the "optimum" structure, and going with the flow of my imagination, I wondered if you were looking for an algorithm to reorganize the employee reporting structure graph into a balanced n-ary tree, which is exactly what I asked you in the comment.

That aside, you second paragraph consists of a list of unrelated questions. Such questions usually get an automatic "unclear what you're asking" vote from me, because this site encourages/requires each post to focus on one core issue. In this case, even those questions were hard to understand due to the choice of obscure phrasing.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .