Chapter 20 – Organizing – The First Corporate Structure

Organizing – The First Corporate Structure

Ancient Wisdom for Modern Management

Most management textbooks trace organizational theory to the industrial revolution, but the first documented hierarchical management structure appears thousands of years earlier in the Bible. When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, he faced a leadership challenge of unprecedented scale – managing a population of several million people with no established governance system. His solution, inspired by his father-in-law Yitro (Jethro), established principles of organizational design that continue to influence management thinking today.

This chapter examines the biblical account of how Moses transitioned from an overburdened solo leader to the head of a sophisticated multi-tiered organization. The story provides valuable insights into delegation, span of control, leader selection, and the development of organizational structures that balance efficiency with effectiveness.

The Problem: Leadership Overload

After leading the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses found himself overwhelmed by the demands of his position:

“The following day Moshe sat to settle disputes for the people, while the people stood around Moshe from morning till evening. When Moshe’s father-in-law saw all that he was doing to the people, he said, ‘What is this that you are doing to the people? Why do you sit there alone, with all the people standing around you from morning till evening?'” (Exodus 18:13-14)

This scenario reflects a common management challenge: the overburdened leader. Moses had become the sole decision-maker, the only channel for conflict resolution, and the exclusive interpreter of God’s laws. This arrangement created several problems:

1. Inefficient use of leadership resources – Moses spent his time on routine matters rather than strategic priorities
2. Bottlenecks in decision-making – People waited all day for resolutions to their disputes
3. Unsustainable workload – The system was exhausting both Moses and the people

Moses explained his approach to Yitro:

“Moshe answered his father-in-law, ‘It’s because the people come to me seeking God’s guidance. Whenever they have a dispute, it comes to me; I judge between one person and another, and I explain to them God’s laws and teachings.'” (Exodus 18:15-16)

Moses saw himself primarily as an intermediary between God and the people—a role that required his personal involvement in every decision. This mindset, while understandable, created an organizational bottleneck that endangered both Moses’s effectiveness and the people’s well-being.

The Solution: A Tiered Management Structure

Yitro recognized the problem immediately and proposed what management scholars now recognize as one of the first documented hierarchical structures:

“Moshe’s father-in-law said to him, ‘What you are doing isn’t good. You will certainly wear yourself out – and not only yourself, but these people here with you as well. It’s too much for you – you can’t do it alone, by yourself.'” (Exodus 18:17-18)

Yitro’s proposal introduced what management theorist Aaron Wildavsky termed “management by exception,” where routine matters are handled through standard procedures, reserving higher-level involvement for only the most complex issues:

“But you should choose from among all the people competent men who are God-fearing, honest and incorruptible to be their leaders, in charge of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. Normally, they will settle the people’s disputes. They should bring you the difficult cases; but ordinary matters they should decide themselves. In this way, they will make it easier for you and share the load with you.” (Exodus 18:21-22)

This organizational design incorporated several key management principles:

1. Delegation of authority – Distributing decision-making power throughout the organization
2. Hierarchical structure – Creating clear reporting relationships and channels of escalation
3. Span of control – Establishing appropriate supervisory ratios
4. Specialization – Allowing Moses to focus on the most complex issues and strategic matters

The Implementation

Moses implemented Yitro’s advice immediately:

“Moshe chose competent men from all Isra’el and made them heads over the people, in charge of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. As a general rule, they settled the people’s disputes – the difficult cases they brought to Moshe, but every simple matter they decided themselves.” (Exodus 18:25-26)

Later, Moses reflected on this organizational change as one of his most significant accomplishments:

“At that time I told you, ‘You are too heavy a burden for me to carry alone. ADONAI your God has multiplied your numbers, so that there are as many of you today as there are stars in the sky… But you are burdensome, bothersome and quarrelsome! How can I bear it by myself alone?'” (Deuteronomy 1:9-12)

The prominence Moses gives to this organizational development in his final address suggests its critical importance to Israel’s successful journey. Rather than beginning with miraculous events or the giving of the Ten Commandments, Moses starts by recounting how he established an effective governance structure.

Management Applications: Selection Criteria for Leaders

Character-Based Selection

Yitro’s advice emphasized character qualities over technical skills for leadership positions:

“But you should choose from among all the people competent men who are God-fearing, honest and incorruptible to be their leaders.” (Exodus 18:21)

These selection criteria established four essential qualities for leaders:

1. Competence – Having the basic abilities required for the role
2. Ethical foundation (“God-fearing”) – Operating from moral principles
3. Honesty – Demonstrating truthfulness and integrity
4. Incorruptibility – Resisting improper influence, especially financial inducements

When selecting managers, organizations often overemphasize technical expertise while undervaluing character qualities. This biblical model suggests reversing this priority—selecting for character first and technical skills second. Research consistently shows that ethical failures in leadership typically stem from character issues rather than competence gaps.

Participative Selection Process

Interestingly, the selection process involved the people themselves:

“Pick for yourselves from each of your tribes men who are wise, understanding and knowledgeable; and I will make them heads over you. You answered me, ‘What you have said would be a good thing for us to do.” (Deuteronomy 1:13-14)

This participative approach created several advantages:

• Greater buy-in from those being governed
• Improved likelihood of cultural fit within each tribal community
• Enhanced legitimacy for the appointed judges
• Shared responsibility for the quality of leadership

Involving team members in the selection of team leaders can increase acceptance of authority and improve organizational commitment. While ultimate appointment authority may remain with senior leadership, input from those being led creates greater legitimacy and accountability.

Span of Control: Finding the Right Balance

The management structure established multiple layers with defined spans of control:

• Leaders of thousands (1:1,000 ratio)
• Leaders of hundreds (1:100 ratio)
• Leaders of fifties (1:50 ratio)
• Leaders of tens (1:10 ratio)

This multi-tiered approach created a massive organizational structure. With approximately 600,000 adult men (Exodus 12:37), this system would require around 78,600 judges throughout all levels of the hierarchy.

The inclusion of “leaders of fifties” is particularly noteworthy, as it breaks the decimal pattern. This suggests a recognition that different organizational levels may require different spans of control. Middle managers, responsible for coordinating across teams, may need smaller spans than first-line supervisors who work directly with individual contributors.

The ideal span of control varies by:

• Organizational level – Executive spans can be broader than first-line supervisory spans
• Task complexity – More complex work requires narrower spans of control
• Team maturity – Experienced teams can operate effectively with wider spans
• Physical proximity – Dispersed teams generally require narrower spans

The unique structure with leaders of “fifties” suggests that ancient organizational designers recognized the need for tailored approaches rather than rigid adherence to mathematical symmetry.

Refinement: The Addition of Elite Advisors

Despite this elaborate structure, Moses still found himself overburdened. God then established a separate advisory body:

“ADONAI said to Moshe, ‘Bring me seventy of the leaders of Isra’el, people you recognize as leaders of the people and officers of theirs. Bring them to the tent of meeting, and have them stand there with you. I will come down and speak with you there, and I will take some of the Spirit which rests on you and put it on them. Then they will carry the burden of the people along with you, so that you won’t carry it yourself alone.'” (Numbers 11:16-17)

This refinement added a distinct leadership tier with different characteristics from the judicial system:

• Personal selection by Moses – Selected from people Moses already recognized as leaders
• Smaller, elite group – Only seventy people compared to thousands of judges
• Spiritual empowerment – Receiving a portion of the same Spirit that guided Moses
• Focus on leadership burden – Addressing the weight of leadership rather than just case resolution

Even well-designed organizational structures require periodic refinement. The addition of the seventy elders demonstrates the value of a senior advisory team that helps carry the emotional and strategic burden of leadership. Modern equivalents include executive committees, senior leadership teams, and boards of directors – groups that provide counsel, share the burden of difficult decisions, and extend the leader’s capacity.

Effective Communication of Expectations

Once the judges were appointed, Moses provided clear guidance about how they should perform their duties:

“At that time I commissioned your judges, ‘Hear the cases that arise between your brothers; and judge fairly between a man and his brother, and the foreigner who is with him. You are not to show favoritism when judging, but give equal attention to the small and to the great. No matter how a person presents himself, don’t be afraid of him; because the decision is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, bring to me and I will hear it.'” (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)

Moses established clear expectations for the judges:

1. Fairness – Judging equitably regardless of relationship or status
2. Impartiality – Giving equal attention to all, regardless of social position
3. Courage – Not being intimidated by powerful individuals
4. Proper escalation – Bringing truly difficult cases to higher authority

He later reinforced these expectations:

“You are to appoint judges and officers for all your gates [in the cities] ADONAI your God is giving you, tribe by tribe; and they are to judge the people with righteous judgment. You are not to distort justice or show favoritism, and you are not to accept a bribe, for a gift blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of even the upright. Justice, only justice, you must pursue.” (Deuteronomy 16:18-20)

Creating a management structure is only the first step – leaders must also clearly communicate performance expectations. Moses’s guidance to the judges provides a model for establishing ethical standards and operational guidelines. Modern organizations benefit from similarly clear statements of values and expectations, particularly regarding ethical boundaries and escalation procedures.

The Value of Outside Perspective

One of the most striking aspects of this organizational transformation is that it originated not from Moses himself but from his father-in-law:

“If you do this – and God is directing you to do it – you will be able to endure; and all these people too will arrive at their destination peacefully.” (Exodus 18:23)

Several factors made Yitro an effective consultant:

1. Family relationship – His personal connection to Moses created trust while his distance from the organization provided objectivity
2. Relevant experience – As a Midianite priest (Exodus 2:16), he had leadership experience himself
3. External perspective – He could see patterns that Moses, immersed in daily operations, could not perceive
4. Spiritual alignment – Yitro acknowledged God’s power and offered sacrifices (Exodus 18:12), creating spiritual credibility with Moses
5. Diplomatic approach – He observed before speaking and framed his advice as a suggestion rather than a criticism

Leaders often benefit from external perspective. Even the most competent leaders develop blind spots regarding their own organizations. Consultants, mentors, and advisors from outside the organization can identify inefficiencies and propose solutions that insiders might miss. Moses’s willingness to implement Yitro’s suggestions demonstrates the value of remaining open to external input.

Balancing Delegation with Accountability

While Moses delegated significant authority to the judges, he maintained ultimate accountability for their decisions:

“The case that is too hard for you, bring to me and I will hear it.” (Deuteronomy 1:17)

This balance created a system where:

• Routine matters could be resolved efficiently at lower levels
• Complex issues received appropriate senior attention
• Standards remained consistent across the organization
• The overall leader maintained visibility into systemic issues

Effective delegation requires balancing autonomy with accountability. Leaders should:

• Clearly define which decisions can be made independently
• Establish criteria for when issues should be escalated
• Create feedback mechanisms to monitor delegated authority
• Remain accessible for truly complex situations

This approach allows leaders to escape the operational trap that initially ensnared Moses while still maintaining appropriate oversight.

Deliverables

The organizational structure established by Moses on Yitro’s advice provides several enduring management principles:

1. Recognize leadership limitations – Even the most capable leaders have finite capacity
2. Distribute authority systematically – Create clear channels for decision-making at appropriate levels
3. Select leaders based on character – Prioritize ethical qualities alongside technical competence
4. Involve stakeholders in leadership selection – Create buy-in through participation
5. Communicate clear expectations – Establish ethical and operational guidelines
6. Remain open to outside perspective – Seek input from those with fresh viewpoints
7. Balance delegation with accountability – Distribute authority while maintaining appropriate oversight

The remarkable aspect of this biblical account is how well these principles translate to modern organizational challenges. Moses faced the fundamental challenge that confronts every growing organization—how to scale leadership beyond the capacity of any single individual. The solution he implemented, a hierarchy based on character and competence with clear escalation paths, remains a foundational approach to organizational design.

Moses’s willingness to transform his leadership approach demonstrates that the mark of a truly great leader is not doing everything personally, but rather creating systems that enable the entire organization to fulfill its purpose. His transition from solo judge to organizational architect allowed both him and the Israelites to “arrive at their destination peacefully” (Exodus 18:23).

Discussion Questions

1. Have you ever had to share a duty/responsibility that you previously handled alone? What challenges did you face in the delegation process? How did your colleagues respond?
2. What criteria do you consider most important when selecting team leaders or managers? How do your criteria compare with the character qualities emphasized in the biblical account?
3. What is the optimal span of control in your experience? How might the appropriate span vary based on organizational level, task complexity, team maturity, and other factors?
4. In what ways could a team-based approach to problem-solving have complemented the hierarchical structure established by Moses? What are the relative advantages of hierarchical versus team-based organizational designs?
5. When have you benefited from outside perspective on your work or organization? What made that external viewpoint particularly valuable?
6. How can modern organizations better balance the efficiency of delegation with appropriate accountability? What mechanisms help ensure delegated authority is exercised responsibly?