Henry Mintzberg 's Organizational Archetypes

The relationship between an organization’s strategy and structure are extremely important because it “directly impacts a firm’s performance” (Rothaermel, 2013, p. 309). Also, as an organization grows, it should reevaluate the current strategy and structure to ensure that it remains the optimal choice for the organization (Rothaermel, 2013). The four types of organizational structures, listed in order of least to most complex according to Rothaermel (2013), are: (1) simple, (2)

"A company can start out by using one of several organization structures. However, companies can sometimes increase their effectiveness using multiple organization structures. The decision for

Organizational structure is the most crucial element for the success of any business. This is because of the way it facilitates and supports the management system of the organization. It is through the structure that specialization and differentiation are attained. For effective management of the employees, different firms employ different structures for the organization that is unique to its operation and the organization culture.

Another type of bureaucracy, more common in the modern world, is the administrative system that oversees the operations of a large institution. Bureaucratic organizations are formed for this purpose. These organizations often operate in a hierarchy. By operating in this manner, the roles of the workers become clearly defined while everyone takes definite responsibility for their actions. However, these organizations are usually slow when it comes to adapting to

The capacity of an organization to survive in the present, intricate and competitive business environment is strongly grounded on the nimbleness and flexibility of the established organizational structure (Shafieem Razminia & Zeymaran, 2016). Furthermore, the effectiveness of the organizational structure is a significant aspect of obtaining a competitive advantage in the industry. Unfortunately, at Aristocrat, the establish structure is ineffective and creates a cumbersome environment and therefore acts in a preventive manner rather than as a source of competitive advantage. The ineffectiveness of the organization structure at Aristocrat appear to be a result of at least two significant inadequacies.

There are many different types of structures any organisation can operate with depending on what their purpose is but, for this study, the following types of organisational structures will be discussed: the flat structure, the tall

The older structure of IBM, recognizable in the so called by Miller “machine bureaucracy”, could work well in stable, predicable environments. But IBM did not work in a stable and predicable environment and the company was mainly looking for the invention of innovative products. Therefore IBM wanted to reach an high level of entrepreneurial intensity, whereas with the machine bureaucracy structure had the lowest level of entrepreneurial intensity.

This note summarises the key features of Henri Mintzbergs theory on the structuring of organisations, which he presented in his book The Structuring of Organisations and Structure in 5 's: Designing Effective Organizations in the early 1980s.

structure; some of the disadvantages are an increase in the complexity of the chain of command.

This section discusses the findings of the research on different aspects of organizational design based on the secondary data gathered as discussed in the methodology section. The data is categorized under specific themes as per the objectives to answer the research questions. As such, as per the data, there are features of a well-organized operating model;

When conducting research on this topic, I decided to explore the several different types of organizational structures, that seemed to be popular, and consistently changing throughout various organizations. Functional, Divisional, Matrix, Multidivisional, hybrid, network, and boundary less organizational structure are the top structures that companies have coined themselves for using, even if they have moved from one structure to another, at some time during the organizational growth path.

A business requires somebody to take charge and manage its parts (workers) so that it can perform to its potential and achieve its goals. The downside to machine organisations is that they do not perform well when it comes to change. When you look at most machines its parts are only intended to do specific tasks when you then try to make that part do something else it may be able to do it, however it won’t do it as well as it may be required to do as it has already been moulded and created to perform another task. Workers in machine organisations will have had a specific routine as to how they get the job done, when you ask them to come out of that routine they will not be able to perform as well as before.

The first type of archetype that this paper will summarize is the simple structure archetype organization. This type of organization is relatively informal compared to the other archetypal structures and lacks standardized systems, which allows the organization to be flexible. The simple structure archetype is used frequently by small or newly formed organizations such as small corporations and start up companies. These organizations are

Halfway through the internship, I have rotated to all the entry-level position in the housekeeping department. If the initial months were all about induction, immersion and adjustment into the new hotel and department the two months after that I am able to confidently rotate to any non-managerial position in the department. There is more focus on mastery of skills and establishment of connections between roles in the operating core. Like in the first journal, the Mintzberg Framework (refer to Figure 4) shall be applied to highlight the different activities that transpired three months after commencement of the internship. A better

To thoroughly examine and discuss the elements of organizational structure, we must consider history. Today’s organizational theories on structure would not be what they are today without the evolution of historical theories. Looking back we must study, Frederick Taylor and his theory of scientific management and his belief that “productivity could be improved by management adhering to scientific principles”. Another historical approach to include in our analysis is the Hawthorn studies and the idea that paying attention to workers, working or informal social factors, open communication and informal social factors results in an effective organization. Lastly, the Human Relations movement, a theory of Peter Drucker and his belief that focussing on equality would increase productivity.