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.
Kirsten’s Flat Non-Hierarchical Structure
Under Kirsten’s ownership, Calmere House operated a flat, non-hierarchical structure in which all 42 employees reported directly to her. Drawing on Burns and Stalker’s distinction between organic and mechanistic organisations (cited in Torrington et al., 2024), Kirsten’s model was quintessentially organic: characterised by decentralised decision-making, fluid communication channels, minimal formalisation, and shared professional responsibility. Mintzberg’s (2023) structural taxonomy would classify this as a simple structure, where coordination is achieved through direct supervision and mutual adjustment rather than rigid standardisation.
The flat structure was highly appropriate for several reasons. First, the small workforce enabled Kirsten to maintain meaningful personal relationships with every employee, fostering the psychological safety and trust that contemporary research identifies as essential for high-performing teams in care environments (West and Dawson, 2022). Second, the consultative management style empowered employees to contribute their professional expertise directly to care decisions, enhancing the quality and personalisation that generated Calmere House’s outstanding reputation and waiting list. Third, the minimal bureaucracy allowed rapid, responsive decision-making that is critical in care settings where resident needs are individual, unpredictable, and time-sensitive (CIPD, 2024a). The absence of hierarchical barriers meant information flowed freely, enabling staff to adapt care provision in real time.
However, evaluation requires acknowledging limitations. The flat structure was entirely dependent on Kirsten’s personal presence and capacity, creating a single point of failure with no succession planning or scalability. As regulatory requirements intensified and utility and staffing costs escalated, the model became unsustainable for a sole owner, which was a motivating factor behind the sale.
Chaffinch Group’s Hierarchical Bureaucratic Structure
Following the acquisition, Chaffinch Group imposed a hierarchical bureaucratic structure with multiple management layers: employees report to Kath, who reports to an area manager, then a general manager, and finally an operations director. This aligns with Weber’s bureaucratic ideal-type (cited in Torrington et al., 2024), characterised by clear chains of command, formalised rules and procedures, role specialisation, and impersonal relationships.
For Chaffinch Group as a multi-site corporate entity, this structure offers clear advantages: it enables standardisation across homes, facilitates regulatory compliance at scale, creates clear accountability, and achieves economies of scale in areas such as procurement, HR administration, and training (Armstrong and Taylor, 2023). These are legitimate benefits for a large care group managing multiple sites with varying staff and resident populations.