DECENTRALIZATION OF ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT: CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

Abstract

The article addresses the pressing issue of determining the degree of susceptibility of organizational structures to decentralization processes in management and substantiates the criteria for selecting a structure oriented toward decentralization principles. This necessity arises from the accelerated changes in the external environment of enterprises amidst economic digitalization, rapid technological advancements, increased speed of information exchange and mobility of resources and people, as well as the growing qualifications of employees. Management decentralization implies the redistribution of authority from top-level executives to lower-level managers, specialists, and workers. It is multidimensional and can be assessed through various parameters, including the direction of dominant communication flows (vertical in centralized and horizontal in decentralized systems), the quantity and significance of decisions made at different levels, and the proportion of resource-related decisions between higher and lower management levels. The purpose of the article is to systematically assess and rank major types of organizational management structures according to their inherent degree of decentralization. Based on an analysis of classifications – particularly those proposed by Henry Mintzberg and the Ukrainian academic tradition – the article distinguishes key structural types: line, line-and-staff, functional, line-functional, divisional, project-based, program-targeted, matrix, network, circular, turquoise, and holacratic. The research reveals that line, line-and-staff, and line-functional structures exhibit a very low degree of decentralization. Professional bureaucracy is also characterized by a low level. The divisional structure demonstrates a moderate level of vertical decentralization, although it may remain highly centralized compared to other firms. High levels of decentralization are noted in functional, project-based, program-targeted, and matrix structures. Very high levels are observed in network, circular, and turquoise structures, which are based on the interaction of autonomous units or self-management. Holacracy demonstrates the maximum level of decentralization, relying on roles, circles, and coordination via clearly defined rules without hierarchy. The study concludes that mechanistic (bureaucratic) structures tend to be more centralized compared to organic (adaptive) ones. Historically, a transition is observed from the dominance of centralized hierarchical structures in the 19th–20th centuries to the spread of organic structures in the latter half of the 20th century and radically decentralized self-management-based approaches in contemporary settings. Investigating the specifics of coordination, goal implementation, and reward systems in such new structures represents a promising direction for future research.