Henry Mintzberg is a recognized leader in theory regarding organizational structure. His perspective for understanding structure comes from a desire to understand how organizations form their strategies. He believes to understand strategy, we must first understand organizational structure (Mintzberg, page xi). There are five configurations to consider when discussing organizational structure as identified by Henry Mintzberg: Simple, Machine Bureaucracy, Professional Bureaucracy, Divisionalized Form, and the Adhocracy.

Simple structure is characterized by centralized decision-making, direct supervision, informal relationships, entrepreneurial spirit, and rudimentary business operations. Employees can experience a strong sense of mission supported by an intimate setting where personal relationships abound. With decisions and guidance often falling on one or few paternalistic/maternalistic figures, this form can be, “accused of distributing organizational power inappropriately” (Mintzberg, page 313). This form is seen in younger organizations.

“When in doubt, control,” (Mintzberg, page 338) is the mantra of the Machine Bureaucracy structure. Characteristics include high specialization, high formalization, repetition, and high standardization. Top management spends most of its time improving the machine or handling conflicts that arise in the rigid structure. Since adaption of operations and strategy are difficult in this rigid form, the human element struggles to be seen and heard. This typology relies on formal communication up and down the structure. Machine Bureaucracy is often found in mature organizations. Some examples include, “regulatory agencies, custodial prisons, and police forces” (Mintzberg, page 331).

Characteristics of Professional Bureaucracy include the standardization of skills, decentralization of decision making, indoctrination, and a large need for training. In this typology, “the professional works relatively independently of his [or her] colleagues, but closely with the clients he [or she] serves” (Mintzberg, page 349). Two examples being teachers and students and professional service industries, like architecture. Professionals in this environment relate more with their craft than the organization itself. Autonomy is given to practitioners because the work is complex, processes are complex, and outputs are not easily measured. Small spans of control make it easier for managers to manage projects. With value placed on individual knowledge and expertise, the nature of the current project determines which professionals within an organization will be part of the team.

The Divsionalized Form is “a set of quasi-autonomous entities couple together by a central administrative structure” (Mintzberg, page 380). This form most notably exists in mature, large, private sector companies and Fortune 500 companies. Almost full autonomy is given to divisions which are organized by market sectors or products. Top administration is responsible for overseeing and setting performance metrics for each of the divisions. Decision-making is centralized to the leaders of each division. A result of an emphasis on performance metrics can lead to an environment where managers are encouraged to ignore the social implications of their work, both internally and externally. This focus can overshadow less measurable indicators of success such as “pride in work, customers well served,” motivation, and job satisfaction (Mintzberg, page 424). Mintzberg specifically warns that this form is unstable, has the narrowest range of applications, and finds itself pulled in the direction of other forms (Mintzberg, page 430).

The newest, least studied structural configuration discussed by Mintzberg, as of 1979, is the Adhocracy. Adhocracy is capable of “sophisticated innovation,” and “able to fuse experts drawn from different disciplines into smoothly functioning ad hoc project teams,” better than any other form (Mintzberg, page 432). Of the forms, it is the most complex and least ordered. It is low in formalization and standardization, high in specialization, and selectively decentralized. Activities are so infrequently repeated, that procedures and standards cannot be organized neatly enough to warrant rigid configurations. A narrow span of control means there is an abundance of different types of managers including functional, integrating, and project managers. Project managers behave more as peers in project teams to achieve coordination, wielding interpersonal skills as power rather than decision making power. Top management focuses on monitoring projects and bringing in new ones. The cost of communication creates inefficiencies. “People talk a lot in these structures; that is how they combine their knowledge and develop new ideas” (Mintzberg, page 463). The redeeming factor to this inefficiency is the ownership in decisions resulting from team members’ participation. Another source of inefficiency is the unbalanced workload. Managers cited workload as one of the most common “human problems.”

Rachel R Gresham

103: Adhocracy, Pro Bureaucracy, Machine Bureaucracy, Simple, Divisionalized

Take a closer look