Note: Read the following case study and answer the questions given at the end of the case.

The process leading up to a transfer of leadership in the United States, just as in other countries, always seems to be accompanied by several similar themes. One theme is change. For some reason, change has an appeal to voters, pretty much regardless of the performance of the incumbent, at least at the level of the presidency. Another common theme is the promise to trim organizations and fight bureaucracy. Both themes have a certain attraction in the business boardroom as well. In business today, effective processes for decision making are associated with words like speed, agility, and ambidexterity--characterized by fewer filters through which decisions have to be processed and fewer people who have veto power over ideas, good or bad. Authority is delegated along with responsibility. Everyone acts in the best interests of the organization, assuming knowledge of the objectives and acceptable ways of achieving them. Permission doesnt have to be granted. Rather, people act now and inform later, or else explain and examine what they did after the fact if things didnt go well.

The way of the bureaucrat

That is in contrast to a bureaucracy, which is, according to my American Heritage Dictionary, an administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action. Wars on bureaucracy are waged and often thought to be won in non-governmental organizations. But there's a perception that the war is rarely waged or won in governments--particularly in democracies. This helps explain the periodic attraction of voters to business leaders, such as Donald Trump, who presumably have beaten bureaucracy in their own organizations. What happens, though, at least according to US history, is that leaders who only have experience in business often are frustrated when they come up against the bureaucratic processes of government. Meetings are longer, more frequent, and involve more people. Everyone seems to want a voice in a decision. And when the leader finally decides, it is only at the end of a long time delay to accommodate rules, due process, imposed by citizens and their representatives in Congress.

When bureaucracy works

Bureaucracy doesnt seem to have many advocates. But if we can extrapolate from the work of Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman and others on individual human behavior, we may obtain insights into situations in which bureaucratic processes are beneficial. Kahneman concludes that each of us reaches decisions using various combinations of automatic System 1 and effortful System 2 thinking. System 1 is characterized by informed intuition, speed, and decisiveness. Its also subject to bias and what Kahneman calls cognitive illusions. System 2 is more deliberative and slower. It is especially appropriate when addressing complex problems, we have not encountered before. But both Systems 1 and 2 can lead to poor decisions both in terms of content and timing. Can we roughly equate bureaucracy to System 2 thinking? Is it too big a leap of logic to apply Kahnemans thinking about individuals to organizations? If you think so, you may want to stop reading here. If not, are there ways of capturing the deliberative advantages of bureaucratic decision processes without paying the price of so many meetings, delays, decision screens, and minority vetoes?

Q2: In Microsoft Ltd., the softwares are developed by using a team of experts and the managers keep their employees relaxed so they can think. Only thinking without any boundaries can lead to innovation and this is what the company wants. Which organization structure Microsoft is using to have innovation in their employees and why this structure is used. Explain in your own words and provide reasoning of your answer. (word limit: 200 words)