Adhocracy and Bureaucracy

Organizations are social entities that are driven by goals that are designed intentionally, and coordinated activity systems and they are linked to the external environment. It means that the organization should have a way of linking the internal and external environments. Organizations are made of people and the relationship between the people is essential. There is a deliberate move by organization management to come up with structures that ensure coordination of

"To the extent that US bureaucracy succeeds, it is due not just to the competent work inside individual organization but the competent interactions among them.” (Goodsell 2008) This quote from Goodsell’s book sums up the book perfectly for me when it comes to the tasks that society puts on bureaucrats. Before reading Charles Goodsell’s, The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, I did not appreciate the United States Government and what is accomplishes on a daily basis. Goodsell’s book examines how essential the United States’ public service institutions are, even when though they are often heavily criticized. Goodsell showcases the research he’s conducted and survey evidence that shows how that bureaucracy is effective in accomplishing tasks that are free of corruption and staffed with employees who are passionate about their work. He discusses criticism and misconceptions of the United States system of government and argues against that. Overall, Goodsell’s book has reinforced and fully convinced me that bureaucracy at all levels in the government is both effective and efficient. The thesis of the book is to describe the larger difference between bureaucracy’s reputation and its actual record. Goodsell discusses issues of bureaucracy, over expectations of bureaucracy, and why bureaucracy is so important. Common misconceptions

The bureaucratic era has been the traditional form of organization for more than a century, in simple terms described as hybridity, standardized operations and none flexibility inside the organization. The change to the post-bureaucratic is shown through personal influence, high trust relationships and the importance of the individuality of everyone (McKenna, Garcia-Lorenzo & Bridgeman, 2010). According to Kernaghan (2000) the characteristic of the bureaucratic era is “position power” and of the post bureaucratic “participate leadership”.

It is evident that both positive and negative aspects of both approaches exist in the current climate, and from a basic understanding it can be drawn that varying aspects of each approach can nullify the negatives of the other in some manner. Consequently I believe the works of the Burns and Stalker (as cited in Grey, 2012) should be considered, in which it is suggested organizations can be seen as mechanistic and organic (roughly translated to bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic) depending on contingencies. This contingency approach would see organizations exhibiting differing behaviors based on the environmental factors that they work within and the assets that they have so that they may better suit the needs of workers, employers, consumers

Bureaucrat is a dirty word to some people in modern society, so how can a bureaucracy be a good thing? Many Public Administration theorist, argue that bureaucracy is essential to the growth and expansion of the United States. Most of the criticism of the bureaucracy within the government is based on myth versus reality. Federal agencies play a critical and a valuable role within society and are indispensable to the operations of the federal government. Bureaucracy can be simply defined as the system in which decision are made by Public Administrators rather than elected officials (legislator) within the government. However, when the average citizen of just says the single word bureaucracy thoughts and images of evoked over how negative

Reflect on your reading for the week, specifically Analytical Exercise 8. Is another form of structural configuration better suited to multiproduct, multiservice companies? If not, is there a form of departmentalization for multiproduct, multiservice companies which would match somewhat the divisional structure configuration?"

Not only innovation lead to change inside organizations, but also some changes in side organizations can lead to innovation. Moreover, managing innovation and change is not an absolute easy process as it seems, as it requires lots of human interaction with different backgrounds, contexts, cultures that require aligning all your human resources to respond to new innovations, and related changes and this will only be done via good and efficient leadership. Generally, innovations and related changes may include change in organization structure workforce planning, marketing strategy, geographical distribution , culture, …ect which directly impact human resources in any organization , therefore the role of the leader is so crucial to manage tensions, conflicts, resistances, uneasiness and development areas that usually appear with new changes and innovations. Leading Innovation and change being part of managing human and organization behaviors is kind of a complex processes that include several factors, stages, models, perceptions and definitely outcomes. In this paper I will get a deep dive and close up view stating the various definitions, different related models, how they work in practical life and what kind of failures such models face in real life implementation; along with a self reflection to the applied experiences of such study and what will be the development plan leading to more successful practices in future.

The twentieth century has brought in a number of management theories which have helped shaped our view of management in the present business environment. These emerging theories have enabled managers to appreciate new patterns of thinking, new ways of organising and new ways of managing organisations and people. Over the years these different theories have enabled the study

When it comes to business as any organizations it requires a structure, based on the resources and demands organization can changed or modify their structure. The most common two structures are vertical and horizontal structure which we see every business organization in global market (Bateman & Snell, 2011). In today’s any business organization theirs and important trait is not only the structure, it is the functions within the organization. An organizing function in management highlights the practices individuals use to interact and work with each other. There are many business organizations that are very successful in their own

In the early 1980s, Henry Mintzberg’s, constructed the organizational archetypes. In this model Mintzbeg introduces five types of organization structure and how they influence the functions of organizations. On the organizational model there are five categories which are: Entrepreneurial, Machine (Bureaucracy), Professional bureaucracy, The Divisional (Diversified), and Adhocracy. Entrepreneurial organization consists of one large unit with one or a few top managers. The organization is relatively unstructured and informal compared with other types of organization, and the lack of standardized systems allows the organization to be flexible.

Managers today have many different options when choosing a managerial theory to implement for their organizations. Knowledgeable managers must be aware of the different historical approaches and also able to determine which approach would be most effective for their unit. The established work structure of my unit currently utilizes elements of classical organizational theory, more specifically scientific management and bureaucratic theory. More recent theories, such as those that focus on human relations, are not applied as frequently. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the historical management theories utilized by my organization and determine whether they are appropriate. When areas in which my organization could be improved upon are identified, the recommendations of other management theories are considered for their possible effectiveness.

In the early 1900’s, some of the first ideas were thrown together to allow an organization to flourish in the upcoming modern era. The first theories were known as scientific and classical management, which focused on three separate theories from Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, and Max Weber. The three theories have similar ideology in the fact that organization is driven by management authority, employees only source of motivation is money, and organizations are machinelike with employees making up the parts of the machine (Papa, Daniels, & Spiker, 2008). In the Prophecy Fulfilled case study, Mary Ann (senior auditor) takes on a management role with subordinates similar to that of Weber’s Bureaucratic Theory (Daniels 1987, pp. 77-78).

In an article by Walter Isaacson in The Agenda that has been titled Why Innovation Needs Both Art and Science, the issue of approaching innovation both as an art and as science is highlighted. The author has postulated that approaching management in a single perspective, either as art or as a science, limits the effectiveness of the management approach that has been used. Isaacson points out that the most prolific thinkers can forge an interaction between science and the humanities. Success in the contemporary world is determined largely, by the ability of the management team to approach the management process both as an art and as a science.

Koontz and Weihrich (1990) Organizational development as well as management coincide with one another. Organizational development seeks to offer a systematic process of identifying and solving problems as they occur over time. However, the greatest tasks of organizational developments are determining what techniques to use to make sure the organization continues to improve while fueling the growth of the organization (Koontz & Weihrich, 1990).

This discussion will first look at the organization as an organism. Then, discuss the implications of open systems and the importance of the environment. Finally, evaluate the strengths and limitations of the organismic metaphor.