This unit explores how organisational structures interact with the wider world of work within a commercial setting. It examines the key external factors and emerging trends—particularly the digital environment—that shape business strategy and workforce planning. It also recognises how culture, employee well-being and behaviour influence the successful delivery of change and overall organisational performance.
Table of Contents
Assessment Questions
AC 1.1 Evaluate the extent to which the flat non-hierarchical structure was appropriate under Kirsten’s ownership and the extent to which the hierarchical bureaucratic structure is suitable under Chaffinch Group’s ownership.
Flat Non-Hierarchical Structure Under Kirsten’s Ownership
Under Kirsten’s ownership, Calmere House operated with a flat organisational structure where all 42 employees reported directly to her. This structure reflected the care home’s founding ethos of “high quality care with a personal touch” established by David and Anna Calmere in 1974. Kirsten’s consultative management style, similar to her parents’, valued employee input into management decisions, recognising that staff possessed qualifications, skills, and experience in their specialist fields.
Advantages of the Flat Structure at Calmere House
The flat structure proved highly appropriate for Calmere House under Kirsten’s leadership for several compelling reasons. Decision-making was rapid and inclusive, with Kirsten holding regular staff meetings and one-to-one check-ins to communicate business progress and gather employee views on achieving goals. This accessibility fostered strong engagement, with staff feeling their opinions were genuinely valued and incorporated into management decisions (Gillikin, 2019).
The structure facilitated exceptional teamwork and communication. Nursing staff held handover meetings at shift ends and worked collaboratively as a cohesive team. This coordination was essential for maintaining continuity of resident care across shifts. The personal connections enabled by direct reporting relationships contributed to remarkably high employee retention, with staff demonstrating strong commitment to residents, co-workers, and Kirsten personally.
Cultural transmission thrived within this structure. Onboarding included stories about how David and Anna founded the company and sold their own home to raise capital, embedding organisational values in new employees. Co-workers participated in selection processes, assessing behavioural fit alongside qualifications, ensuring cultural continuity. These practices maintained the distinctive personal character that generated a waiting list of potential residents.
Limitations of the Flat Structure
However, the flat structure presented inherent limitations that became increasingly problematic. With 42 employees reporting directly to one person, Kirsten’s span of control was extensive, creating potential bottlenecks in decision-making and excessive demands on her time and attention. Policies and procedures were limited, with informal ad-hoc approaches prevailing, which, whilst flexible, created vulnerability to inconsistency and knowledge loss if key personnel departed (Ingram, 2024).
The structure’s dependence on Kirsten’s personal involvement meant the organisation lacked resilience. Her concerns about rising utility and staff costs threatening residents’ care reflected the challenge of one individual managing all strategic and operational demands simultaneously. The structure that enabled personal connection also constrained growth potential and succession planning.
Hierarchical Bureaucratic Structure Under Chaffinch Group
Following acquisition, Chaffinch Group implemented a hierarchical bureaucratic structure. Employees now report to Kath (the appointed manager), who reports to one of eight area managers, who reports to one of two general managers, who reports to an operations director. This multi-layered hierarchy replaced the direct access to leadership that characterised Kirsten’s approach.
Potential Advantages of the Hierarchical Structure
In principle, hierarchical structures offer advantages for larger organisations managing multiple sites. Clear reporting lines establish accountability, with designated managers responsible for specific functions (AIHR, 2024). Standardised policies and procedures, which Chaffinch Group introduced across all their care homes, theoretically ensure consistent service delivery and regulatory compliance. The structure provides career progression pathways and enables specialist functions, as evidenced by Chaffinch Group’s dedicated People team comprising a people manager, recruitment advisor, employment relations case advisor, and administrator.
Why the Hierarchical Structure is Currently Unsuitable
Despite theoretical advantages, the hierarchical structure has proven highly unsuitable in its current implementation at Calmere House. The evidence demonstrates significant dysfunction: employee turnover has increased dramatically, staff who valued the previous culture are leaving and being replaced by agency workers; sickness absence has risen; existing employees feel hopeless and dissatisfied; workloads have increased as remaining staff cover absences; employees work longer hours to reduce resident impact; and critically, staff feel their views and opinions are no longer sought or valued.
The structure has also failed commercially. Previously stable with a waiting list, Calmere House now has empty rooms, with long-term residents choosing to leave and difficulties attracting new permanent and respite residents. The personalised care that differentiated Calmere House has been replaced by standardisation, evidenced by refurbished rooms that “lack individual character and all look the same” despite residents previously choosing their own colour schemes and décor.
The hierarchical structure’s suitability depends critically on implementation quality. Kath’s autocratic management style, giving instructions and expecting compliance without discussion, fundamentally conflicts with the consultative culture employees experienced under Kirsten. The structure itself is not inherently unsuitable for care homes, but its imposition without cultural sensitivity, staff engagement, or adaptation to Calmere House’s distinctive character has created the current crisis.
Must Read:
