Organizational

structure

An organizational structure defines how activities such as task allocation, coordination, and
supervision are directed toward the achievement of organizational aims.[1]

Organizational structure affects organizational action and provides the foundation on which
standard operating procedures and routines rest. It determines which individuals get to
participate in which decision-making processes, and thus to what extent their views shape the
organization's actions.[2] Organizational structure can also be considered as the viewing glass or
perspective through which individuals see their organization and its environment.[2]

Organizations are a variant of clustered entities.[3]

An organization can be structured in many different ways, depending on its objectives. The
structure of an organization will determine the modes in which it operates and performs.
Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of responsibilities for different
functions and processes to different entities such as the branch, department, workgroup, and
individual.[4]

Organizations need to be efficient, flexible, innovative and caring in order to achieve a

sustainable competitive advantage.[5]
Types

Pre-bureaucratic structures
Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is
most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks, such as sales.
The structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most
communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new
(entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development.

They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max
Weber's tripartite classification of authority.
Bureaucratic structures

Large international organisation

bureaucratic structure: the League of
Nations in 1930[6]

Weber (1948, p. 214) gives the analogy that “the fully developed bureaucratic mechanism
compares with other organizations exactly as does the machine compare with the non-
mechanical modes of production. Precision, speed, unambiguity, … strict subordination,
reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these are raised to the optimum point in
the strictly bureaucratic administration.”[7] Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of
standardization. They are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations, usually
adopting a tall structure. The tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is
echoed in Burns and Stalker's[8] distinction between mechanistic and organic structures.

The Weberian characteristics of bureaucracy are:

Clear defined roles and responsibilities

A hierarchical structure
 Respect for merit
Bureaucratic structures have many levels of management ranging from senior executives to
regional managers, all the way to department store managers. Since there are many levels,
decision-making authority has to pass through more layers than flatter organizations. A
bureaucratic organization has rigid and tight procedures, policies and constraints. This kind of
structure is reluctant to adapt or change what they have been doing since the company started.
Organizational charts exist for every department, and everyone understands who is in charge
and what their responsibilities are for every situation. Decisions are made through an organized
bureaucratic structures, the authority is at the top and information is then flowed from top to
bottom. This causes for more rules and standards for the company which operational process is
watched with close supervision. Some advantages for bureaucratic structures for top-level
managers are they have a tremendous control over organizational structure decisions. This
works best for managers who have a command and control style of managing. Strategic
decision-making is also faster because there are fewer people it has to go through to approve. A
disadvantage in bureaucratic structures is that it can discourage creativity and innovation in the
organization. This can make it hard for a company to adapt to changing conditions in the
marketplace.

Post-bureaucratic
The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic
and one much more specific.[9] In the generic sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to
describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with
Weber's ideal type bureaucracy. This may include total quality management, culture
management and matrix management, amongst others. None of these however has left behind
the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber's rational, legal type,
and the organization is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along these lines, describes them as
cleaned up bureaucracies,[10] rather than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon
Kunda, in his classic study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of
bureaucratic control - the formalization, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations -
does not change in principle.....it shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization's
culture'.

Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic
Organization,[10] which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not
bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic
organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and
command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct
contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision-making rules rather
than decision-making rules. This sort of horizontal decision-making by consensus model is often
used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a non-profit or community
organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who
normally experience oppression in groups.

Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity theory and
organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can be used to engender
organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner et al. (2000) studied how simple structures could
be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes links
to simple structures and improviser learning. Other scholars such as Jan Rivkin and
Sigglekow,[11] and Nelson Repenning[12] revive an older interest in how structure and strategy
relate in dynamic environments.

Functional structure
A functional organizational structure is a structure that consists of activities such as
coordination, supervision and task allocation. The organizational structure determines how the
organization performs or operates. The term "organizational structure" refers to how the people
in an organization are grouped and to whom they report. One traditional way of organizing
people is by function. Some common functions within an organization include production,
marketing, human resources, and accounting.

This organizing of specialization leads to operational efficiency, where employees become

specialists within their own realm of expertise. On the other hand, the most typical problem with
a functional organizational structure is that communication within the company can be rather
rigid, making the organization slow and inflexible. Therefore, lateral communication between
functions becomes very important, so that information is disseminated not only vertically, but
also horizontally within the organization. Communication in organizations with functional
organizational structures can be rigid because of the standardized ways of operation and the
high degree of formalization.

As a whole, a functional organization is best suited as a producer of standardized goods and

services at large volume and low cost. Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized
in a functional structure, which makes producing a limited number of products or services
efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiency can further be realized as functional organizations
integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and distributed quickly and at low
cost.[13] For instance, a small business could make components used in production of its
products instead of buying them.

Even though functional units often perform with a high level of efficiency, their level of
cooperation with each other is sometimes compromised. Such groups may have difficulty
working well with each other as they may be territorial and unwilling to cooperate. The
occurrence of infighting among units may cause delays, reduced commitment due to competing
interests, and wasted time, making projects fall behind schedule. This ultimately can bring down
production levels overall, and the company-wide employee commitment toward meeting
organizational goals.

Divisional structure
The divisional structure or product structure consists of self-contained divisions. A division is a
collection of functions which produce a product. It also utilizes a plan to compete and operate
as a separate business or profit center. According to Zainbooks.com, divisional structure in the
United States is seen as the second most common structure for organization today.

Employees who are responsible for certain market services or types of products are placed in
divisional structure in order to increase their flexibility. Examples of divisions include regional (a
U.S. Division and an EU division), consumer type (a division for companies and one for
households), and product type (a division for trucks, another for SUVs, and another for cars). The
divisions may also have their own departments such as marketing, sales, and engineering.

The advantage of divisional structure is that it uses delegated authority so the performance can
be directly measured with each group. This results in managers performing better and high
employee morale. Another advantage of using divisional structure is that it is more efficient in
coordinating work between different divisions, and there is more flexibility to respond when there
is a change in the market. Also, a company will have a simpler process if they need to change
the size of the business by either adding or removing divisions. When divisional structure is
utilized more specialization can occur within the groups. When divisional structure is organized
by product, the customer has their own advantages especially when only a few services or
products are offered which differ greatly. When using divisional structures that are organized by
either markets or geographic areas they generally have similar functions and are located in
different regions or markets. This allows business decisions and activities coordinated locally.

The disadvantages of the divisional structure is that it can support unhealthy rivalries among
divisions. This type of structure may increase costs by requiring more qualified managers for
each division. Also, there is usually an over-emphasis on divisional more than organizational
goals which results in duplication of resources and efforts like staff services, facilities, and
personnel.

Matrix structure
The matrix structure groups employees by both function and product simultaneously. A matrix
organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in order to take
advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and
decentralized forms. An example would be a company that produces two products, "product A"
and "product B". Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within the
company as follows: "product A" sales department, "product A" customer service department,
"product A" accounting, "product B" sales department, "product B" customer service department,
"product B" accounting department.
Weak/functional matrix: A project
manager with only limited authority is
assigned to oversee the cross-
functional aspects of the project. The
functional managers maintain control
over their resources and project areas.
Balanced/functional matrix: A project
manager is assigned to oversee the
project. Power is shared equally
between the project manager and the
functional managers. It brings the best
aspects of functional and projectized
organizations. However, this is the most
difficult system to maintain as the
 sharing of power is a delicate
proposition.
Strong/project matrix: A project
manager is primarily responsible for the
project. Functional managers provide
technical expertise and assign
resources as needed.
There are advantages and disadvantages of the matrix structure. Some of the disadvantages
include tendencies towards anarchy, power struggles and 'sinking' to group and division
levels.[14] Matrices increase the complexity of the chain of command, which can present
problems because of the differentiation between functional managers and project managers.
This, in turn, can be confusing for employees to understand who is next in the chain of
command. An additional disadvantage of the matrix structure is higher manager to worker ratio
that results in conflicting loyalties of employees. However, the matrix structure also has
significant advantages that make it valuable for companies to use. The matrix structure may
improve upon the "silo" critique of functional management in that it aims to diminish the vertical
structure of functional and create a more horizontal structure which allows the spread of
information across task boundaries to happen much quicker. It aims to allow specialization to
increase depth of knowledge and allows individuals to be chosen according to project needs.

Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully developed the matrix
structure supporting their focused strategy. Its design combines functional and product based
divisions, with employees reporting to two heads.[15]

Some experts also mention the multinational design,[16] common in global companies, such as
Procter & Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This structure can be seen as a complex form of the
matrix, as it maintains coordination among products, functions and geographic areas.
With the growth of the internet, and the associated access that gives all levels of an organization
to information and communication via digital means, power structures have begun to align more
as a wirearchy, enabling the flow of power and authority to be based not on hierarchical levels,
but on information, trust, credibility, and a focus on results.

In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that through the forces of
globalization, competition and more demanding customers, the structure of many companies
has become flatter, less hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.[17]

Organizational circle

Flat organization
The Flat organization is common in small companies (entrepreneurial start-ups, university spin
offs). As companies grow they tend to become more complex and hierarchical, which lead to an
expanded structure, with more levels and departments.

However, in rare cases, such as the examples of Valve, GitHub, Inc. and 37signals, the
organization remains very flat as it grows, eschewing middle managers.[18] (However, GitHub
subsequently introduced middle managers). All of the aforementioned organizations operate in
the field of technology, which may be significant, as software developers are highly skilled
professionals, much like lawyers.

Senior lawyers also enjoy a relatively high degree of autonomy within a typical law firm, which is
typically structured as a partnership rather than a hierarchical bureaucracy. Some other types of
professional organizations are also commonly structured as partnerships, such as accountancy
companies and GP surgeries.
Bureaucracy
Often, growth would result in bureaucracy, the most prevalent structure in the past. It is still,
however, relevant in former Soviet Republics, China, and most governmental organizations all
over the world. Shell Group used to represent the typical bureaucracy: top-heavy and
hierarchical. It featured multiple levels of command and duplicate service companies existing in
different regions. All this made Shell apprehensive to market changes,[19] leading to its
incapacity to grow and develop further. The failure of this structure became the main reason for
the company restructuring into a matrix.

Team
One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is team and the
related concept of team development or team building. In small businesses, the team structure
can define the entire organization.[16] Teams can be both horizontal and vertical.[20] While an
organization is constituted as a set of people who synergize individual competencies to achieve
newer dimensions, the quality of organizational structure revolves around the competencies of
teams in totality.[21] The team could classified into functional team structure, lightweight team
structure, heavyweight team structure and autonomous team structure.[22] For example, every
one of the Whole Foods Market stores, the largest natural-foods grocer in the US developing a
focused strategy, is an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-managed
teams, while team leaders in each store and each region are also a team.[23] Larger bureaucratic
organizations can benefit from the flexibility of teams as well. Xerox, Motorola, and
DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that actively use teams to perform tasks.

However, studies shows that this structure may have challenges for an organization. The
scattered nature of team-based organizations makes it difficult for them to communicate and
share information across borders, where knowledge exchange between and among teams and
stakeholders becomes crucial as team-based organizing becomes the norm.[24] However, this
can be tackled by concentrate on their internal tasks as well as their relationships and
connections with their multiple stakeholders, both inside and external to the firm.[25]

Network
Another modern structure is network. A network can be described as “long term purposeful
arrangements among distinct but related for-profit organizations that allow those firms in them
to gain or sustain competitive advantage”[26] where “communication between people of different
ranks tends to resemble later consultation rather than vertical command”.[27] Network
organizations lack the hierarchical aspects of other structures and are characterized by clusters
of interconnected teams and individuals that come together to form unique teams and complete
certain projects or achieve common goals. Participating agents are constrained by their
specialization and role within the organization, but their influence varies with the development
and dissolution of the projects and teams.[28] For example, although an organization may have
separate sales and marketing teams which each operate independently, certain projects will
require individuals from those teams to work together and form partnerships for the length of
their duration.

This extends out to businesses on a larger scale, where instead of teams within an organization,
the network consists of organizations within a market. While business giants risk becoming too
clumsy to proact (such as), act and react efficiently,[29] a network organization can contract out
any business function that can be done better or more cheaply. In essence, these types of
network structures' managers spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external
relations, usually by electronic means.

H&M is outsourcing its clothing to a network of 700 suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are
based in low-cost Asian countries. Not owning any factories, H&M can be more flexible than
many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with its low-cost strategy.[30]
Advantages
The potential management opportunities offered by recent advances in complex networks
theory have been demonstrated[31] including applications to product design and development,[32]
and innovation problem in markets and industries.[33] For these benefits to be realised, the
network structure relies on trust through shared values and norms, actively avoiding hold-up
problems and opportunism risks.[28] By eliminating the uncertainty that one agent will use any
potential gain in bargaining power for their singular gain,[34] a network structure can avoid the
associated inefficiencies that would arise.

Disadvantages
However, the potential disadvantages for enterprises adopting the networked organizational
structure include unreasonable design, insufficient supervision and poor linkage ability.[35] If the
different relations required for the network structure contrast too greatly it may lead to
confusion, delays, and unnecessary increases in complexity. Due to the network structure relying
on many different individuals or teams working together independently, effective supervision is
needed to avoid shirking or free riding. Similarly, some individuals and teams coordinate poorly,
resulting in communication breakdowns and misunderstanding, which only hinders the
progression of tasks.

Virtual
Virtual organization is defined as being closely coupled upstream with its suppliers and
downstream with its customers such that where one begins and the other ends means little to
those who manage the business processes within the entire organization. A special form of
boundaryless organization is virtual. Hedberg, Dahlgren, Hansson, and Olve (1999) consider the
virtual organization as not physically existing as such, but enabled by software to exist.[36] The
virtual organization exists within a network of alliances, using the Internet. This means while the
core of the organization can be small but still the company can operate globally be a market
leader in its niche. According to Anderson, because of the unlimited shelf space of the Web, the
cost of reaching niche goods is falling dramatically. Although none sell in huge numbers, there
are so many niche products that collectively they make a significant profit, and that is what
made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful.[37]

Hierarchy-community phenotype
model

Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of

Organizational Structure

In the 21st century, even though most, if not all, organizations are not of a pure hierarchical
structure, many managers are still blind to the existence of the flat community structure within
their organizations.[38]

The business is no longer just a place where people come to work. For most of the employees,
the firm confers on them that sense of belonging and identity –– the firm has become their
“village”, their community.[39] The firm of the 21st century is not just a hierarchy which ensures
maximum efficiency and profit; it is also the community where people belong to and grow
together, where their affective and innovative needs are met.[40]

Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) developed the Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of
Organizational Structure borrowing from the concept of Phenotype from genetics. "A phenotype
refers to the observable characteristics of an organism. It results from the expression of an
organism’s genes and the influence of the environment. The expression of an organism’s genes
is usually determined by pairs of alleles. Alleles are different forms of a gene. In our model, each
employee’s formal, hierarchical participation and informal, community participation within the
organization, as influenced by his or her environment, contributes to the overall observable
characteristics (phenotype) of the organization. In other words, just as all the pair of alleles
within the genetic material of an organism determines the physical characteristics of the
organism, the combined expressions of all the employees’ formal hierarchical and informal
community participation within an organization give rise to the organizational structure. Due to
the vast potentially different combination of the employees’ formal hierarchical and informal
community participation, each organization is therefore a unique phenotype along a spectrum
between a pure hierarchy and a pure community (flat) organizational structure."[40]

"The Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organisational Structure views an organisation

as having both a hierarchy and a community structure, both equally well established and
occurring extensively throughout the organisation. On the practical level, it utilises the
organizational chart to study the hierarchical structure which brings across individuals’ roles and
formal authority within their designated space at the workplace, and social network analysis to
map out the community structure within the organisation, identifying individuals’ informal
influences which usually do not respect workplace boundaries and at many times extend beyond
the workplace."[5]

See also informal organization

Open Value Network

Open Value Network, also known as OVN, is a transnational open network that makes heavy use
of technology to support its operations. It resembles the [centralized] Network type structure
described above with the difference that there are no formal mechanisms of power to allow
centralization of control over the platform (or the technological infrastructure) that enables the
activities of the network. Examples are Bitcoin, Ethereum, Sensorica, etc.
Moreover, Open Value Networks are permissionless, which means that anyone can become part
of them without the need to go through a hiring process or to sign an employment contract.

These organisations hold together through gamification or set of incentives that are formally
and directly linked to contributions and performance.

Distributed autonomous organisations

Decentralized autonomous organizations, also known as DAOs, are essentially autonomous
Open Value Networks with most governance being "on chain", i.e. formalized as smart contracts,
which are programmed rules that govern the functioning of the organisation, minimizing human
interference as much as possible. Examples include The DAO.

The conventional hierarchical management model is likely to be replaced by DAO, which will also
dramatically reduce enterprises' costs for management, collaboration, and communication.[41]
Further, a study conducted by Santana and Albareda argues that the creation of decentralized
autonomous organizations is based on two major structural changes: (1) the evolution of digital
platforms and decentralized organizations, and (2) the appearance of cutting-edge information
technologies that permit novel socio-material interferences.[42]

History
Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal
organizations through highly royal and clerical power structures to industrial structures and
today's post-industrial structures.

As pointed out by Lawrence B. Mohr,[43] the early theorists of organizational structure, Taylor,
Fayol, and Weber "saw the importance of structure for effectiveness and efficiency and assumed
without the slightest question that whatever structure was needed, people could fashion
accordingly. Organizational structure was considered a matter of choice... When in the 1930s,
the rebellion began that came to be known as human relations theory, there was still not a denial
of the idea of structure as an artifact, but rather an advocacy of the creation of a different sort of
structure, one in which the needs, knowledge, and opinions of employees might be given greater
recognition." However, a different view arose in the 1960s, suggesting that the organizational
structure is "an externally caused phenomenon, an outcome rather than an artifact."[44]

In the 21st century, organizational theorists such as Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) are
once again proposing that organizational structure development is very much dependent on the
expression of the strategies and behavior of the management and the workers as constrained by
the power distribution between them, and influenced by their environment and the outcome.[40]

Military command and

control
There are correspondences between Mintzberg's organizational archetypes and various
approaches to military Command and Control (C2). Mintzberg's Machine Bureaucracy
represents a highly centralized approach to C2, with a narrow allocation of decision rights,
restricted patterns of interaction among organization members, and a restricted flow of
information. Mintzberg's Adhocracy, on the other hand, represents a more networked and less
centralized approach to C2, with more individual initiative and self-synchronization. It involves a
broader allocation of decision rights, broader interaction patterns, and broader information
distribution. Mintzberg's other organization types (for example, the Professional Bureaucracy
and the Simple Structure) fall in between these two.[45]

Moreover, Walker et. al states the event analysis for systematic teamwork (EAST) method as
one of the military command and control approach provides a means of describing emergent
system-level features that result from the intricate interactions of system constituents (human
and technical).[46] They are modelled using task, social, and propositional networks and
presented using an integrated methodologies approach.[46] The social and technical principle of
function and approximation, which states that similar individuals and the same technology may
achieve the same objective via entirely distinct paths and entirely different starting points, is one
important aspect of EAST.[46] In addition, desirable emergent features, such as systems level
"shared awareness", pace, agility, and self-synchronization might appear due to the indisputable
reality that humans may adjust to the techno-organisational aspects of a particular system.[46]
Operational and informal
The set organizational structure may not coincide with facts, evolving in operational action. Such
divergence decreases performance, when growing as a wrong organizational structure may
hamper cooperation and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of
resources and budgets. Further, the informal organization, which is the structure of social
interactions that emerges within organizations, may be subject to restrictions also tends to lag
in its integration into the newly established formal organisation, whereas formal organization or
the subjective norms system created by managers can be changed relatively quickly.[47]

Organizational structures should be adaptive to process requirements, aiming to optimize the

ratio of effort and input to output.

Configurations of
organizational structure
according to Mintzberg

Diagram, proposed by Henry Mintzberg,

showing the main parts of organisation,
including technostructure
Parts of organization
Henry Mintzberg considers five main parts of organization:[48]

Strategic apex (leaders of organization)

Middle line (managers of lower level)
Operating core (workers of lowest level,
directly producing something or
providing services)
Technostructure (analysts)
Support staff (helping other members of
organisation to perform their function)
An additional element is organisational ideology.[48]

Mechanisms of coordination
Mintzberg considers six main mechanisms of coordination of work:[48]
Mutual adjustment (without formal,
standardized mechanisms)
Direct supervision (when one person,
leader of organization, gives direct
orders to others)
Standardization of work processes
(based on the documents that regulate
work and are produced by
technostructure)
Standardization of outputs (only the
results of work are regulated)
Standardization of skills (based on
preparing the specialists outside the
organization)
 Standardization of norms (based on
organisation's values, ideology)

Configurations of organizations
Mintzberg considers seven main configurations of organizational structure:[48]

1. Entrepreneurial organization
(strategic apex, direct supervision
dominate)
2. Machine organization
(technostructure, standardization of
work processes dominate)
3. Professional organization (operating
core, standardization of skills
dominate)
4. Diversified organization (middle level,
standardization of outputs dominate)
 5. Innovative organization (support
staff, mutual adjustment dominate)
6. Missionary organization (ideology,
standardization of norms dominate)
7. Political organization (no part or
mechanism of coordination
dominates)
Entrepreneurial organisation or Simple structure has simple, informal structure.[49] Its leader
coordinates the work using direct supervision.[49] There is no technostructure, little support
staff.[50] Such structure is usually found in organizations with environment that is simple (so that
one man could have significant influence), but changing (so that flexibility of one man would
give a significant advantage over the bureaucratic structures).[49]

Machine organisation or Machine bureaucracy has formal rules regulating the work, developed
technostructure and middle line, is centralised, hierarchical.[49] Such structure is common when
the work is simple and repetitive.[49] Organizations also tend to achieve such structure when they
are strongly controlled from outside.[49] Also, such structure is common for organizations that
perform work that is related to some sort of control (for example, prisons, police), or
organizations with special safety requirements (for example, fire departments, airlines).[49]

Professional configuration or Professional bureaucracy mostly coordinates the work of

members of operating core, professionals, through their training (for example, in university).[49]
Operating core in such organisation is large, middle line insignificant, as the professionals
perform complex work and have significant autonomy.[49] Technostructure is also
insignificant.[50] Support staff, helping the professionals to do their job, is numerous.[49]
Professionals participate in administrative work, thus there are many committees.[49] Such
structure is common for universities, hospitals, law firms.[49]

Diversified Configuration or Divisionalized form consists of several parts having high

autonomy.[49] Such structure is common for old, large organizations.[49]

Innovative Configuration or Adhocracy gathers the specialists of different fields into teams for
specific tasks.[49] Such organizations are common when environment is complex and
dynamic.[49] Mintzberg considers two types of such organization: operating adhocracy and
administrative adhocracy.[49] Operating adhocracy solves innovative problems for its clients.[49]
Examples of such organisation can be advertising agency or firm that develops the prototypes of
products.[49] Administrative adhocracy has teams solving problems for the organization itself.[49]
As an example of such organization Mintzberg gives NASA when it worked on Apollo
program.[49]

Missionary organisation coordinates the work through organisational ideology.[49] Formal rules
in such organization are not numerous.[49] Such organizations are decentralized, the differences
between levels are not significant.[49]

Political configuration happens when the power is mostly used through workplace politics.[49]

See also

Corporate governance
Corporation
Industrial and organizational psychology
Dynamic governance
Management
Organizational architecture
Organizational behavior
Organizational learning
Organizational culture
Organization development
Organizational psychology
Parent company
Value network
Viable system theory
Organizational Cybernetics
Connectivity Integrator
References

1. Pugh, D. S., ed. (1990).Organization Theory:

Selected Readings. Harmondsworth:
Penguin.

2. Jacobides., M. G. (2007). The inherent

limits of organizational structure and the
unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a
near-war. Organization Science, 18, 3, 455-
477.
3. Feldman, P.; Miller, D. (1986-01-01). "Entity
Model Clustering: Structuring A Data Model
By Abstraction" (http://comjnl.oxfordjournal
s.org/content/29/4/348) . The Computer
Journal. 29 (4): 348–360.
doi:10.1093/comjnl/29.4.348 (https://doi.or
g/10.1093%2Fcomjnl%2F29.4.348) .
ISSN 0010-4620 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/issn/0010-4620) .
4. Baligh, Helmy H. (2006). "Organization
Structures" (https://link.springer.com/chapt
er/10.1007/0-387-28317-X_2) .
Organization Structures: Theory and
Design, Analysis and Prescription.
Information and Organization Design
Series. Vol. 5. Springer New York. pp. 33–
64. doi:10.1007/0-387-28317-X_2 (https://d
oi.org/10.1007%2F0-387-28317-X_2) .
ISBN 978-0387258478. S2CID 239069558
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
239069558) .

5. Lim, M. (2017). Examining the literature on

organizational structure and success.
College Mirror, 43, 1, 16-18.
http://www.cfps.org.sg/publications/the-
college-mirror/article/1098
6. Grandjean, Martin (2017). "Analisi e
visualizzazioni delle reti in storia. L'esempio
della cooperazione intellettuale della
Società delle Nazioni" (https://www.rivistew
eb.it/doi/10.14647/87204) . Memoria e
Ricerca (2): 371–393. doi:10.14647/87204
(https://doi.org/10.14647%2F87204) . See
also: French version (https://halshs.archive
s-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01610098v2) (PDF)
and English summary (http://www.martingr
andjean.ch/complex-structures-and-interna
tional-organizations/) .

7. Weber, M. (1948). From Max Weber: Essays

in Sociology, translated, edited and with an
introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
 8. Burns, T. and G. Stalker. (1961) The
Management of Innovation. London:
Tavistock.

9. Grey C., Garsten C., 2001, Trust, Control and

Post-Bureaucracy, Sage Publishing)

10. Heckscher C. (Editor), Donnellon A. (Editor),

1994, The Post-Bureaucratic Organization:
New Perspectives on Organizational
Change, Sage Publications

11. Nicolaj Sigglekow and Jan W. Rivkin,

October 2003, Speed, Search and the
Failure of Simple Contingency, No. 04-019

12. Repenning, N. (2002). A Simulation-Based

Approach to Understanding the Dynamics
of Innovation Implementation. Organization
Science, 13, 2: 109-127.
13. Raymond E. Miles, Charles C. Snow, Causes
of Failure in Network Organizations,
California Management Review, Summer
1992

14. Davis, Stanley M.; Lawrence, Paul R. (1978).

"Problems of Matrix Organizations" (https://
hbr.org/1978/05/problems-of-matrix-organi
zations) . Harvard Business Review.
Vol. 56, no. 3. Boston, Massachusetts:
Harvard Business School (published 1 May
1978). pp. 131–142. ISSN 0017-8012 (http
s://www.worldcat.org/issn/0017-8012) .
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201
90309190225/https://hbr.org/1978/05/pro
blems-of-matrix-organizations) from the
original on 9 March 2019. Retrieved
9 March 2019.
15. (Starbucks.com (2008). Starbucks Coffee
International. Available at: "Starbucks
Coffee International" (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20081113204806/http://www.starb
ucks.com/aboutus/international.asp) .
Archived from the original (http://www.star
bucks.com/aboutus/international.asp) on
2008-11-13. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
(accessed 20/10/08))

16. Robbins, S.F., Judge, T.A. (2007).

Organizational Behavior. 12th edition.
Pearson Education Inc., p. 551-557.

17. Gratton, L. (2004). The Democratic

Enterprise, Financial Times Prentice Hall,
pp. xii-xiv.
18. Fried, Jason (April 2011). "Why I Run a Flat
Company" (http://www.inc.com/magazine/
20110401/jason-fried-why-i-run-a-flat-comp
any.html) . Inc. Retrieved 1 Sep 2013.

19. Grant, R.M. (2008). History of the Royal

Dutch/Shell Group. Available at:
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/
docs/07Shell.pdf Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20110124102500/http://ww
w.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/docs/07S
hell.pdf) 2011-01-24 at the Wayback
Machine (accessed 20/10/08)

20. Thareja P(2008), "Total Quality Organization

Thru’ People,(Part 16), Each one is
Capable", FOUNDRY, Vol. XX, No. 4,
July/Aug 2008
21. Thareja P. (2007). A Total Quality
Organisation thru'People Each One is
Capable. Available at: http://www.foundry-
planet.com

22. Schilling, Melissa A. (2017). Strategic

management of technological innovation (h
ttps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/929155407)
(5th ed.). New York, NY. ISBN 978-1-259-
53906-0. OCLC 929155407 (https://www.w
orldcat.org/oclc/929155407) .

23. Fishman C. (1996). Whole Foods Is All

Teams. Available at:
https://www.fastcompany.com/26671/who
le-foods-all-teams
24. "Team-based global organisations:
Goodbye to hierarchy-based global
organising" (https://www.emerald.com/insi
ght/content/doi/10.1108/SD-12-2015-018
8/full/html) . Strategic Direction. 32 (3):
16–18. 2016-03-14. doi:10.1108/SD-12-
2015-0188 (https://doi.org/10.1108%2FSD-
12-2015-0188) . ISSN 0258-0543 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/issn/0258-0543) .
25. "Team-based global organisations:
Goodbye to hierarchy-based global
organising" (https://www.emerald.com/insi
ght/content/doi/10.1108/SD-12-2015-018
8/full/html) . Strategic Direction. 32 (3):
16–18. 2016-03-14. doi:10.1108/SD-12-
2015-0188 (https://doi.org/10.1108%2FSD-
12-2015-0188) . ISSN 0258-0543 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/issn/0258-0543) .

26. Jarillo, J. Carlos (January 1988). "On

strategic networks" (https://onlinelibrary.wil
ey.com/doi/10.1002/smj.4250090104) .
Strategic Management Journal. 9 (1): 31–
41. doi:10.1002/smj.4250090104 (https://d
oi.org/10.1002%2Fsmj.4250090104) .
27. Clement, Andrew (1990), Berleur, Jacques;
Clement, Andrew; Sizer, Richard;
Whitehouse, Diane (eds.), "Computers and
Organizations" (https://doi.org/10.1007/97
8-1-4757-4328-9_18) , The Information
Society: Evolving Landscapes, New York,
NY: Springer, pp. 305–326,
doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4328-9_18 (http
s://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4757-4328-9_
18) , ISBN 978-1-4757-4328-9, retrieved
2023-04-23
28. van Alstyne, Marshall (1997-06-01). "The
State of Network Organization: A Survey in
Three Frameworks" (https://doi.org/10.108
0/10919392.1997.9681069) . Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic
Commerce. 7 (2–3): 83–151.
doi:10.1080/10919392.1997.9681069 (http
s://doi.org/10.1080%2F10919392.1997.968
1069) . ISSN 1091-9392 (https://www.worl
dcat.org/issn/1091-9392) .

29. Gummesson, E. (2002). Total Marketing

Control. Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 266.

30. Capell, K. H&M Defies Retail Gloom.

Available at: [1] (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20080909210411/http://www.businessw
eek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2008/gb20
08093_150758.htm) (accessed 20/10/08).
31. Amaral, L.A.N. and B. Uzzi. (2007) Complex
Systems—A New Paradigm for the
Integrative Study of Management, Physical,
and Technological Systems. Management
Science, 53, 7: 1033–1035.

32. Braha, D. and Y. Bar-Yam. (2007) The

Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product
Development: Empirical and Analytical
Results. Management Science, 53, 7:
1127–1145.

33. Kogut, B., P. Urso, and G. Walker. (2007)

Emergent Properties of a New Financial
Market: American Venture Capital
Syndication, 1960–2005. Management
Science, 53, 7: 1181-1198.
34. Noldeke, Georg; Schmidt, Klaus M.
(Summer 1995). "Option Contracts and
Renegotiation: A Solution to the Hold-up
Problem". The RAND Journal of Economics.
26 (2): 163. JSTOR 2555911 (https://www.j
stor.org/stable/2555911) .
35. Di, Zhenpeng; Liu, Yun; Li, Shimei (2022).
"Networked Organizational Structure of
Enterprise Information Security
Management Based on Digital
Transformation and Genetic Algorithm" (htt
ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC9260168) . Frontiers in Public Health.
10: 921632.
doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.921632 (https://do
i.org/10.3389%2Ffpubh.2022.921632) .
ISSN 2296-2565 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/issn/2296-2565) . PMC 9260168 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9
260168) . PMID 35812480 (https://pubme
d.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35812480) .
36. Hedberg, B., G. Dahlgren, J. Hansson, and
N.-G. Olve (1999). Virtual Organizations and
Beyond: Discover Imaginary Systems.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

37. Anderson, C. (2007). The Long Tail.

Random House Business Books, pp. 23, 53.

38. Butler Jr., J.K. (1986). A global view of

informal organization. Academy of
Management Journal, 51, 3, 39-43.

39. Stacey, M. (1974). The myth of community

studies. C. Bell, H. Newby, (Editors), The
Sociology of Community: A Selection of
Readings. London, Frank Cass, 13-26.
40. Lim, M., G. Griffiths, and S. Sambrook.
(2010). Organizational structure for the
twenty-first century. Presented the annual
meeting of The Institute for Operations
Research and The Management Sciences,
Austin. https://communities-
innovation.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/Organizational-
Structure-for-the-Twenty-first-Century-
220619i.pdf
41. Wang, Shuai; Ding, Wenwen; Li, Juanjuan;
Yuan, Yong; Ouyang, Liwei; Wang, Fei-Yue
(October 2019). "Decentralized
Autonomous Organizations: Concept,
Model, and Applications" (https://ieeexplor
e.ieee.org/document/8836488) . IEEE
Transactions on Computational Social
Systems. 6 (5): 870–878.
doi:10.1109/TCSS.2019.2938190 (https://d
oi.org/10.1109%2FTCSS.2019.2938190) .
ISSN 2329-924X (https://www.worldcat.or
g/issn/2329-924X) . S2CID 203183777 (htt
ps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:203
183777) .
42. Santana, Carlos; Albareda, Laura (2022-09-
01). "Blockchain and the emergence of
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations
(DAOs): An integrative model and research
agenda" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/s
cience/article/pii/S0040162522003304) .
Technological Forecasting and Social
Change. 182: 121806.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121806 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.techfore.2022.121
806) . ISSN 0040-1625 (https://www.worldc
at.org/issn/0040-1625) . S2CID 250227772
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
250227772) .

43. Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining

Organizational Behavior. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
44. Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining
Organizational Behavior. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

45. Vassiliou, Marius, David S. Alberts, and

Jonathan R. Agre (2015). "C2 Re-
Envisioned: the Future of the Enterprise."
CRC Press; New York; pp. 93-96.
46. Walker, Guy H.; Stanton, Neville A.; Stewart,
Rebecca; Jenkins, Daniel; Wells, Linda;
Salmon, Paul; Baber, Chris (2009-07-01).
"Using an integrated methods approach to
analyse the emergent properties of military
command and control" (https://www.scienc
edirect.com/science/article/pii/S00036870
08001014) . Applied Ergonomics. 40 (4):
636–647.
doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2008.05.003 (https://
doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.apergo.2008.05.00
3) . ISSN 0003-6870 (https://www.worldca
t.org/issn/0003-6870) . PMID 18640662 (ht
tps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1864066
2) . S2CID 30726194 (https://api.semantics
cholar.org/CorpusID:30726194) .
47. Gulati, Ranjay; Puranam, Phanish (April
2009). "Renewal Through Reorganization:
The Value of Inconsistencies Between
Formal and Informal Organization" (https://
pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/orsc.1
090.0421) . Organization Science. 20 (2):
422–440. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0421 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1287%2Forsc.1090.0421) .
ISSN 1047-7039 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/issn/1047-7039) . S2CID 46270379 (http
s://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4627
0379) .

48. Robertas Jucevičius "Strateginis

organizacijų vystymas", „Pasaulio lietuvių
kultūros, mokslo ir švietimo centras“, 1998,
ISBN 9986-418-07-0, p. 81-92
49. Victoria Lemieux "Applying Mintzberg's
Theories on Organizational Configuration to
Archival Appraisal" // "Archivaria", 1998, 46,
p. 32-85 [2] (https://archivaria.ca/index.ph
p/archivaria/article/view/12675/13842)

50. Fred C. Lunenburg „Organizational

Structure: Mintzberg’s Framework“ //
„International Journal of Scholarly
Academic Intellectual Diversity“, 2012,
Volume 14, Number 1

Bibliography

Lawrence B. Mohr, Explaining

Organizational Behavior. The Limits and
Possibilities of Theory and Research.,
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982.
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Organizational_structure&oldid=1217842363"

This page was last edited on 8 April 2024, at

05:43 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless
otherwise noted.