Featured Post from Emory University, Goizueta Business School

Decoding Hierarchies in Business: When is Having a Boss a Benefit for an Organization?

Jul 5, 2024

4 min

Özgecan Koçak



Most companies around the world have a leader, whether that title is a President, CEO, or Founder. There’s almost always someone at the very top of a corporate food chain, and from that position down, the company is structured hierarchically, with multiple levels of leadership supervising other employees.


It’s a structure with which most people in the working world are familiar, and it dates back as long as one can remember. The word itself—leader—dates back to as far as the 12th Century and is derived from the Old English word “laedere,” or one who leads. But in 2001, a group of software engineers developed the Agile Workflow Methodology, a project development process that puts a priority on egalitarian teamwork and individual independence in searching for solutions.


A number of businesses are trying to embrace a flatter internal structure, like the agile workflow. But is it necessarily the best way to develop business processes? That’s the question posed by researchers, including Goizueta Business School’s Özgecan Koçak, associate professor of organization and management, and fellow researchers Daniel A. Levinthal and Phanish Puranam in their recently published paper on organizational hierarchies.


“Realistically, we don’t see a lot of non-hierarchical organizations,” says Koçak. “But there is actually a big push to have less hierarchy in organizations.”


"Part of it is due to the demotivating effects of working in authoritarian workplaces. People don’t necessarily like to have a boss. We place value in being more egalitarian, more participatory."


Özgecan Koçak, Associate Professor of Organization & Management


“So there is some push to try and design organizations with flatter hierarchies. That is specifically so in the context of knowledge-based work, and especially in the context of discovery and search.”


Decoding Organizational Dynamics


While the idea of an egalitarian workplace is attractive to many people, Koçak and her colleagues wanted to know if, or when, hierarchies were actually beneficial to the health of organizations. They developed a computational agent-based model, or simulation, to explore the relationships between structures of influence and organizational adaptation. The groups in the simulation mimicked real business team structures and consisted of two types of teams. In the first type, one agent had influence over the beliefs of rest of the team. For the second type, no one individual had any influence over the beliefs of the team. The hierarchical team vs. the flat structured team.


“When you do simulations, you want to make sure that your findings are robust to those kinds of things like the scale of the group, or the how fast the agents are learning and so forth,” says Koçak.


"What’s innovative about this particular simulation is that all the agents are learning from their environment. They are learning through trial and error. They are trying out different alternatives and finding out their value."


Özgecan Koçak


Koçak is very clear that the hierarchies in the simulation are not exactly like hierarchies in a business organization. Every agent was purposefully made to be the same without any difference in wisdom or knowledge. “It’s really nothing like the kinds of hierarchies you would see in organizations where there is somebody who has a corner office, or somebody who is has a management title, or somebody’s making more than the others. In the simulation, it’s nothing to do with those distributional aspects or control, and nobody has the ability to control what others do in (the simulation). All control comes through influence of beliefs.”


Speed vs. Optimal Solutions


What they found in the simulation was that while both teams solved the same problems presented to them, they achieved different results at different speeds.


"We find that hierarchical teams don’t necessarily find the best solution, but they find the good enough solution in the shorter term. So if you are looking at the really long term, crowds do better. The crowds where individuals are all learning separately, they find the best solution in the long run, even though they are not learning from each other."


Özgecan Koçak


For example, teams of scientists looking for cures or innovative treatments for diseases work best with a flat structure. Each individual works on their own timeline, with their own search methodologies. The team only comes together for status updates or to discuss their projects without necessarily getting influence or direction from colleagues. The long-term success of the result is more important in some cases than the speed at which they arrive to their conclusion.


That won’t work for an organization that answers to a board of directors or shareholders. Such parties want to see rapid results that will quickly impact the bottom line of the company. This is why the agile methodology is not beneficial to large-scale corporations. Koçak says, “When you try to think about an entire organization, not just teams, it gets more complicated. If you have many people in an organization, you can’t have everybody just be on the same team. And then you have to worry about how to coordinate the efforts of multiple teams.


"That’s the big question for scaling up agile. We know that the agile methodology works pretty well at the team level. However, when firms try to scale it up applied to the entire organization, then you have more coordination problems."


Özgecan Koçak


Özgecan Koçak (pronounced as ohz-gay-john ko-chuck) is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School.


If you're looking to know more about this topic or connect with Özgecan for an interview - simply click on her icon today


Connect with:
Özgecan Koçak

Özgecan Koçak

Associate Professor of Organization & Management
Organization DesignOrganizational Identity

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Emory University, Goizueta Business School

6 min

#Expert Insight: Decoding Hierarchies in Business: When is Having a Boss a Benefit for an Organization?

Most companies around the world have a leader, whether that title is a President, CEO, or Founder. There’s almost always someone at the very top of a corporate food chain, and from that position down, the company is structured hierarchically, with multiple levels of leadership supervising other employees. It’s a structure with which most people in the working world are familiar, and it dates back as long as one can remember. The word itself—leader—dates back to as far as the 12th Century and is derived from the Old English word “laedere,” or one who leads. But in 2001, a group of software engineers developed the Agile Workflow Methodology, a project development process that puts a priority on egalitarian teamwork and individual independence in searching for solutions. A number of businesses are trying to embrace a flatter internal structure, like the agile workflow. But is it necessarily the best way to develop business processes? That’s the question posed by researchers, including Goizueta Business School’s Özgecan Koçak, associate professor of organization and management, and fellow researchers Daniel A. Levinthal and Phanish Puranam in their recently published paper on organizational hierarchies. “Realistically, we don’t see a lot of non-hierarchical organizations,” says Koçak. “But there is actually a big push to have less hierarchy in organizations.” Part of it is due to the demotivating effects of working in authoritarian workplaces. People don’t necessarily like to have a boss. We place value in being more egalitarian, more participatory. Özgecan Koçak, Associate Professor of Organization & Management “So there is some push to try and design organizations with flatter hierarchies. That is specifically so in the context of knowledge-based work, and especially in the context of discovery and search.” Decoding Organizational Dynamics While the idea of an egalitarian workplace is attractive to many people, Koçak and her colleagues wanted to know if, or when, hierarchies were actually beneficial to the health of organizations. They developed a computational agent-based model, or simulation, to explore the relationships between structures of influence and organizational adaptation. The groups in the simulation mimicked real business team structures and consisted of two types of teams. In the first type, one agent had influence over the beliefs of rest of the team. For the second type, no one individual had any influence over the beliefs of the team. The hierarchical team vs. the flat structured team. “When you do simulations, you want to make sure that your findings are robust to those kinds of things like the scale of the group, or the how fast the agents are learning and so forth,” says Koçak. What’s innovative about this particular simulation is that all the agents are learning from their environment. They are learning through trial and error. They are trying out different alternatives and finding out their value. Özgecan Koçak Koçak is very clear that the hierarchies in the simulation are not exactly like hierarchies in a business organization. Every agent was purposefully made to be the same without any difference in wisdom or knowledge. “It’s really nothing like the kinds of hierarchies you would see in organizations where there is somebody who has a corner office, or somebody who is has a management title, or somebody’s making more than the others. In the simulation, it’s nothing to do with those distributional aspects or control, and nobody has the ability to control what others do in (the simulation). All control comes through influence of beliefs.” Speed vs. Optimal Solutions What they found in the simulation was that while both teams solved the same problems presented to them, they achieved different results at different speeds. We find that hierarchical teams don’t necessarily find the best solution, but they find the good enough solution in the shorter term. So if you are looking at the really long term, crowds do better. The crowds where individuals are all learning separately, they find the best solution in the long run, even though they are not learning from each other. Özgecan Koçak Özgecan Koçak (pronounced as ohz-gay-john ko-chuck) is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She holds a Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. For example, teams of scientists looking for cures or innovative treatments for diseases work best with a flat structure. Each individual works on their own timeline, with their own search methodologies. The team only comes together for status updates or to discuss their projects without necessarily getting influence or direction from colleagues. The long-term success of the result is more important in some cases than the speed at which they arrive to their conclusion. That won’t work for an organization that answers to a board of directors or shareholders. Such parties want to see rapid results that will quickly impact the bottom line of the company. This is why the agile methodology is not beneficial to large-scale corporations. Koçak says, “When you try to think about an entire organization, not just teams, it gets more complicated. If you have many people in an organization, you can’t have everybody just be on the same team. And then you have to worry about how to coordinate the efforts of multiple teams. That’s the big question for scaling up agile. We know that the agile methodology works pretty well at the team level. However, when firms try to scale it up applied to the entire organization, then you have more coordination problems. Özgecan Koçak “You need some way to coordinate the efforts with multiple teams.” The Catch: Compensation Makes a Difference The simulation did not take into account one of the biggest parts of a corporate hierarchical structure—incentives and reward. The teams in the simulation received no monetary compensation for their leadership or influence. That is not something that happens in real life. Koçak says, “If you built up an organization with just influence, you just say we’re not going to have any authority, and we’re not going to give anybody the right to control anybody else’s actions. If we’re not going to be rewarding anyone more than the other, there’s not going to be any marks of status, etc. We’re just going to have some people influence others more. I would guess that would automatically lead to a prestige hierarchy right away. The person with more influence, you would start respecting more.” It’s almost like we’re incapable of working in a flat society, because somebody always wants to be or naturally becomes a leader and an influencer whether they planned on it or not. Özgecan Koçak The paper concludes that both methodologies, with either hierarchical and flat organization of teams, reach their goals. They just arrive at different times with different end results. If an organization has the luxury of time and money, a flat, agile methodology organization might be the right structure for that company. However, even agile workflow needs some coordination, according to Koçak. “There are also some search tasks that require coordination. You can’t always be searching on your own independently of others. There are some situations in which search needs to be done in a coordinated fashion by more than one person in teams. That’s because many of the knowledge-based settings where we do discovery require some division of labor, some specialization by expertise.” Communication is Key The key to any successful workflow, whether it be agile or hierarchical, is coordination and communication. Looking back to the example of scientific researchers, Koçak said, “You have scientific teams working independently of one another without a common boss dictating what they do research on or how they do it. Instead, they explore and experiment on their own. They write up their results, share their results, and learn from each other, because they are in the long-term game. The goal is to find the truth, however long it takes. “But when you look closely at a scientific team where everybody’s exploring, there is still some need for coordination. A lot of that happens through communication, and a lot of times projects will have a lead. Not necessarily somebody who knows better than the others, but somebody who’s going to help with coordination.” The leaner, flatter organizational structures in businesses might be gaining popularity. This simulation done by Koçak and colleagues, however, shows that it isn’t a perfect fit for every company, Further, some form of hierarchical workflow is necessary to maintain communication and coordination. Hierarchical structures don’t always find the best solution to a problem, but it’s almost always a good solution in a timelier fashion. Looking to know more?  Özgecan Koçak is associate professor of Organization & Management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She is available to speak with media about this topic - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

4 min

Retro Appeal: Research Reveals the Reasons Behind Vintage Shopping in Turbulent Times

Why buy vintage? Reasons abound. It’s kinder to the environment. It’s usually cheaper. It’s back in style. But did you know it may also address a deep-seated psychological need for stability amid upheavals? Vintage consumption—that is, buying previously owned items from an earlier era—acts as a means to connect the past, present, and future. That connection across time can be reassuring, most especially in times of uncertainty. When you really want to buy a leather jacket that’s older than you are, it may be enlightening to consider the circumstances. This vintage insight reveals itself in research by Ryan Hamilton, associate professor of marketing at Goizueta Business School. In an award-winning article titled “Stitching time: Vintage consumption connects the past, present, and future,” Hamilton—along with coauthors Gulen Sarial-Abi, Kathleen Vohs, and Aulona Ulqinaku—uncovered why we may want to turn to something old when we perceive threats to our worldviews. Notably, multiple studies have shown thoughts of death to increase the appeal of items that have already stood the test of time. The Psychological Appeal of Thrifting In psychology, “meaning frameworks” are how we, as human beings, interpret and understand our lives as meaningful and valuable. Threats to our meaning frameworks—i.e., the pillars propping up our worldviews—can include thoughts of death, unsettling economic upheavals, and other existential challenges. In order to explore the effects of meaning threats on our preference for vintage, Hamilton and coauthors designed several studies. Their pilot test measured the physical health of nursing home residents. It then measured their preferences for vintage items, controlling for other variables. The results held up the researchers’ hypothesis: Vintage items—be they books, watches, bicycles, or luggage—were more strongly preferred over their modern versions by elderly participants in poorer health, presumably those most likely to have mortality on their minds. Six subsequent studies used different variables to see if the main hypothesis continued to hold up. It did, while at the same time revealing more information about the mechanisms at work. Ryan Hamilton Associate Professor of Marketing Death or Dental Pain In one study, for example, researchers prompted participants with death reminders. They had to contemplate and write about their own deaths to make sure mortality was top of mind. Researchers prompted a control group with reminders of dental pain. Both groups then answered a 12-question survey about their desire for structure (e.g., set routines and practices) at that particular moment. But there was another element in this study: contemplating wearing a watch from the 1950s. As predicted by the main hypothesis, death cues were associated with participants reporting that they desired more structure. The only exceptions was for those who imagined an old watch ticking on their wrists. Vintage consumption seemed to act as a buffer against unsettling thoughts of death for them. What is going on here? As noted above, the researchers theorize and show that vintage objects tend to connect our thoughts of the past, present, and future. These mental, intertemporal connections tend to be reassuring—“a hidden factor” in our preferences and choices, as Hamilton notes. More than Nostalgia One might think nostalgia—a sentimental longing for the past—could also be at work. Feeling nostalgic for one’s own past and social connections can buffer against meaning threats, as previous research has shown. But this paper was designed to tease out nostalgia. It focused on vintage’s connections across time regardless of one’s personal experiences. “This study allowed us to clearly show that people respond differently to something they believe to be old,” as Hamilton explains. “It’s not just something that has a retro look, which was one of my favorite aspects of this project.” Hamilton and his coauthors achieved this by having participants evaluate identical items thought to be genuinely vintage or replicas. And the results were robust. Retro replicas, which can prompt nostalgia, did not have the same psychological impact as items believed to be genuinely old. For instance, 20-year-olds who find a watch from the 1950s reassuring can’t feel nostalgic about the design personally. They can, however, feel a connection across time—and that came through in the study. Retail Therapy on the Rise? Hamilton’s research here follows his broader interest in consumer psychology, branding, and decision-making. “When we’re buying things, we may think it’s based on strict utility maximization. However, it also might be making us feel better in some way,” says Hamilton. Shopping can serve as an emotional management strategy—for better or for worse. Although it was outside the scope of this particular investigation (and all participants were over age 18), the insights gleaned here may help explain why 21st-century teenagers seem to be particularly avid “thrifters” these days. “I don’t want to overstate our findings. But it’s at least possible that the appeal of vintage for teenagers is boltstered by a sense of permanence and endurance that helps them during times of upheaval,” Hamilton says. It turns out a 30-year-old leather jacket might help its new owner feel better on many levels. So is it any wonder that vintage shopping is surging in uncertain times? Fashion magazines, such as Vogue and GQ, are following the vintage craze closely in 2024. Concern for climate change and the Earth’s finite resources may present two intertwined reasons to buy old things: those two things are environmental and psychological. If tumultuous times continue amid contentious elections, wars, and other threats, it seems safe to bet on vintage. Ryan Hamilton is associate professor of Marketing at Emory University - Goizueta Business School. If you're a journalist looking to know about this topic, simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

8 min

Expert Insight: NFL Fandom: The Last Cultural Unifier?

In 2024, few cultural touchstones unify America. One of the remaining cultural unifiers is the NFL. It is almost guaranteed that the Super Bowl will be the most watched television program each year. Add Taylor Swift (another rare cultural unifier) attending to watch her boyfriend and an appealing halftime musical guest, and you can have over 120 million people watching the same program at the same time. Nothing else comes close. There is little doubt that the NFL is the undisputed champion of American sports. But how do the various NFL fandoms compare? Which team has the top fandom, and which struggles (struggle is relative here, as the lowest-ranked NFL fandom is still impressive)? This is an interesting question in a couple of ways. First, it reveals something important about the level of connection in different cities. Cities with stronger fan bases tend to have more of a shared identity. Boston residents share more love across their teams (Celtics, Red Sox, Bruins, Patriots) than folks from Tampa Bay. “Sports” cities are fundamentally different. It's also an interesting marketing analysis. Fandoms are people who share passion and love for what are essentially brands. Examining fandom can reveal something critical about how brands that inspire fandom are built. Comparing fan bases can also inflame passions. Sports fans are (often) the ultimate fans as they closely identify with their teams and feel each victory as a personal triumph and each loss as a defeat. Because fans’ identities are tied to their teams, ranking fan bases can feel like an attack. Saying Browns fans aren’t as good of fans as Ravens fans feels like an attack on Cleveland. The deeper perspective motivating this analysis is that fandom is about cultural passion, so what people are fans of largely dictates the tone and content of our societies. A society that loves baseball, country music, and trucks feels very different from one that favors soccer, opera, and Vespas. The fandom rankings are a snapshot in time of how fandom works in the NFL. And remember, the NFL is not just the top sports league in America but also the closest thing we have in 2024 to a shared societal passion. Analyzing Fandoms I have been ranking NFL and other fan bases for more than a decade. These fandom analyses are an example of brand equity analytics, and they use two types of data. The goal is to understand the relationship between market characteristics and fandom outcomes at the league level. We can then evaluate each team based on how it performs relative to league norms. The fandom or market outcome measures include things like data on prices, attendance, and social media following. These are measures of fan engagement. Prices provide a signal of how much market power a team has created. Attendance shows the enthusiasm of fans in the market to pay for tickets and take the time to travel and attend. Social media following reveals how many fans the team has in and out of their home market. Each metric has advantages and limitations. Social media following provides an indication of national fandom, but it also captures casual fans who would never pay for a ticket. The second aspect of the analysis focuses on market potential. NFL markets vary from New York, with a population of 20 million, to Green Bay, with a few hundred thousand. Income levels in San Francisco are far higher than in Jacksonville or Cleveland. I use a range of demographics, but income and population are the major factors. Again, the metrics are good but not perfect. For example, using MSA populations isn’t perfect because teams have different footprints. The Packers are more of a Wisconsin team than a Green Bay team. The teams in New York and LA share a market. Should they each get half of the metro area population? One factor that I do not control for is competition. In the southeast, NFL teams may compete with SEC teams. I have debated this issue (with myself) and have decided to neglect it. This year's analysis includes a significant change from last year. The significant change is that I am not controlling for team performance. Controlling for team performance is helpful because it isolates core or unchanging fandom. This approach has appeal, as we can argue that teams with more passionate fandoms will be more resilient against losing seasons. The downside of controlling for performance is that we get less of a measurement of the fandom's overall value. If a team like Kansas City is on an extended winning streak, then the Chiefs brand is very valuable at the moment. Controlling for winning makes the analysis more about the core, near-permanent passion of a fandom, while not controlling makes the results more relevant to current brand power. The analysis involves three steps. The first step creates measures of each team’s relative fandom outcomes and market potential. The second step develops a statistical model of the relationship between market potential and fandom outcomes. The third step compares each team's fandom outcomes with the statistical model's predictions. The third step is a comparison of actual results versus predicted – the key point is that the prediction is based on leaguewide data. As these analyses are always imperfect, the best way to consider the fandom rankings is as tiers. I like the idea of quadrants. Some brief comments on the members of each quadrant (Elite, Solid, Role Players, Benchwarmers). I will be discussing each fandom on social media. TikTok: @fanalyticspodcast Instagram: @fanalyticsmikelewis YouTube: @fanalyticsmike A bonus figure follow the Quad overviews. The Results Quadrant 1: The Elite The Dallas Cowboys lead the top group of teams, followed by the Packers, Eagles, Chiefs, 49ers, Raiders, Patriots, and Steelers. Sounds a lot like what the man on the street would list as the top NFL brands. The Cowboys and Packers leading the way is no surprise. The Cowboys are second in social following and the leaders in attendance. The Packers are an astonishing fandom story as the team is located in the definitive small market. The Eagles leading the Steelers is going to be troubling in Western Pennsylvania, but the Eagles have more pricing power and more social following. The 49ers are a solid NFL fandom with few weaknesses. The Patriots are in a new era, and it will be fascinating to see if they maintain their top-tier position as Brady and Belichick become memories. The Chiefs' presence in the top group is a change from past years and is due to the shift away from controlling for performance. The Chiefs have a great fandom, but the team’s success currently pumps them up. The Chiefs are in a brand-building phase as the team continues building its dynasty. The question for the Chiefs is where they end up long-term. I don't fully understand the Raiders' ranking. The Raiders are midrange in attendance and social following but do well because are reported to have the highest prices in the league. I suspect this is more an idiosyncrasy of the Las Vegas market than a reflection of significant passionate fandom. Quadrant 2: Solid Performers The Quadrant 2 teams are the Broncos, Giants, Panthers, Seahawks, Saints, Ravens, Texans, and Browns. These are the solid performers of NFL fandoms (brands). These are teams with above expected fandom outcomes for their relative market potentials. The Quadrant 2 clubs are all passionate fanbases (maybe one exception) despite very different histories. For example, the AFC North rival Ravens and Browns differ in both relative history and frequency of winning. Cleveland fandom involves significant character, while the Ravens are a “blue-collar” brand that has been a consistent winner. There are a lot of great stories in Quad 2. The Saints were once the Aints but are now a core part of New Orleans. The Broncos and Giants are great fandoms who are probably angry to be left out of Quad 1. The Panthers' position is unexpected and may be due to some inflated social media numbers. This is the challenge when an analysis is based only on data. When data gets a little weird, like an inflated social media follower count dating back to Cam Newton's days, the results can also get a little weird. This is a teachable moment—do not analyze and interpret data without knowing the context (the data-generating processes). Quadrant 3: Role Players Quadrant 3 fandoms are teams whose fandom outcomes are slightly below average league performance (for similar markets). The Quadrant 3 teams include (in order) the Bills, Falcons, Buccaneers, Jets, Vikings, Bears, Dolphins, and Bengals. There are some interesting teams in Quad 3. The Bills have a great and notorious fandom. Jumping through flaming tables in subzero weather should get you into the top half of the rankings? The big-market Jets and the small-market Bengals have two of the most fascinating QBs in the league. Both clubs could be poised to get to Quad 2 with a Super Bowl or two. Da’Bears may be one of the most disappointing results. A team with an SNL skit devoted to their fandom in a market like Chicago shouldn’t be in Quad 3. Other quick comments: The Falcons need to win a title. Florida is tough for professional teams. The Vikings should play outside. Quadrant 4: Hopium These are the NFL's weakest fandoms, with the key phrase being “the NFL’s.” The Quad 4 teams, in order, are the Lions, Rams, Jaguars, Colts, Titans, Commanders, Chargers, and Cardinals. It’s a lot of teams who have not won regularly and have many moves and name changes. The Lions are poised for a move upward and maybe a sleeping giant of a fandom. They have the most watchable coach in the league and the most surprising celebrity fan. An interesting side story in Quad 4 is the battle for Los Angeles between the Rams (formerly of Saint Louis) and the Chargers (previously San Diego). They play in the same market, but the Rams have won more. But will Herbert lead the Chargers past the Rams? Quad 4 illustrates an important lesson: consistency. The Rams moved from St. Louis and then back to LA. The Chargers went from San Diego to LA. The Colts left Baltimore in the middle of the night. The Titans were the Oilers and moved from Houston to Nashville. The Cardinals were the other NFL team Saint Louis lost. The Commanders should have stopped with their previous name. The Fandom Outcomes / Market Potential Matrix The following figure is a bit of bonus material that may provide some insight into the inner workings of the analysis. The figure below shows the performance of each team on the Fandom Outcome and the Market Potential Indexes. The upper left region features teams with less lucrative markets but above-average fandoms, like the Packers, Steelers, and Chiefs. The lower right region is the teams with below-average fandom outcomes despite high potential markets, like the Commanders, Chargers, and Rams. This pictorial representation is also interesting as it shows teams with similar positions. These similarities can be somewhat surprising. For example, the Lions and Dolphins have very similar profiles despite the differences between Detroit and Miami. Mike Lewis is an expert in the areas of analytics and marketing. This approach makes Professor Lewis a unique expert on fandom as his work addresses the complete process from success on the field to success at the box office and the campaign trail. Michael is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Interested in following Future Fandom! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

View all posts
Powered by