Adhocracy

custom made services in an innovative way. a loose, flexible, self-renewing organic form tied together mostly through lateral means. Low degree of formalization. Decentralized decision making. Usually found in a diverse freewheeling environment (ex: advertising agency), adhocracy functions as an “organizational tent,” exploiting benefits that structural designers traditionally regarded as liabilities. Adhocracy structures are most often found in conditions of turbulence and rapid change. Adhocracy doesn’t believe much in hierarchys, dress codes, company cars, executive dining rooms, lofty titles, country club memberships, etc.

Divisionalized Form

example: campuses in a multicampus university. The bulk of the work is done in quasi-autonomous units (divisions). Each division serves its own market and supports its own functional units. The divisional presidents are accountable to the corporate office for profits, sales growth, and return on investment. Divisionalized structure offers economies of scale, ample resources, and responsiveness without undue economic risks. There is however a cat and mouse game between the headquarters and divisions. HQ wants tighter oversight, while divisional managers try to evade corporate control. Another risk is that HQ may lose touch with the operations. Reliable and measurable goals need to be set and reviewed.

Professional Bureaucracy

example: Harvard University. The operating core is large relative to its structural parts (particularly the technostructure), few managerial levels between strategic apex and professors creating a flat and decentralized structure. Control comes from professional training and indoctrination. Professionals are insulated from formal interference, freeing them to use extertise. Problems come from coordination and quality control. Responds slowly to external change (glacial pace). Downside: Tenured professors are largely immune to formal sanctions. As a result universities have to find other ways to deal with incompetence and irresponsibility. Professional Bureaucracy’s respond slowly to change. Professionals usually view any change as annoying distraction in their field. The paradox is that the professionals may be at the forefront of their specialty, but the institution as a whole moves at a glacier pace. Professional bureacracys usually stumble when they try to exercise greater control over the operating core.

Machine Bureaucracy

example: McDonald’s. Decisions are made at the Apex. Day to day operations are controlled by managers and standardized procedures. They have large support staff and sizable technostructure staff with many layers between apex and operating levels. For routine activities Machine Beauracracy is efficient and effective. One of the challenges is motivating and satisfying workers in the operating core. People can tire quickly of repetitive work and standardized procedures. However, offering too much creativity in a McDonalds type setting could undermine consistency and uniformity – two keys to the company’s success. One of the problems to this type of system is that the Apex may be out of touch with the local area in which a franchise may reside. Teachers do not like this approach because it does not give them the flexibility they need.

Simple Structure

Only has two levels; strategic apex and operating level. Coordination is accomplished through direct supervision is applied. Many start-ups are at this level. Another example is a mom-and-pop operation. Usually just one person directs the operation. Either mom or pop constantly monitor what is going on and exercise authority over daily operations. This model is extremely flexible and adaptable, however a boss can become too wrapped up in the day to day and lose long term vision.