Mintzberg’s Theories On Organizational Configuration

Bolman and Deal offer four frames with which to break down organizations: their structure, their human resources, their political environment and their symbolic meaning. They offer a metaphor to capture the essence of each frame (translated for orchestra here):

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)

The job design and the motivation are not self-sufficient to increase the productivity and they require an organizational structure to further coordinate organizational activities. Organizational structure, through its chain of command, coordinates, motivates and monitors employees.   Buchanan and Huczynski (2010) argue that the structure of the organizations serves 3 functions:

Structure is the basis through which an organization seeks to create control the direction of an organization. This is completed through clear definitions of the allocation of work, differentiation, and the coordination of having those responsibilities working together towards the efforts of the organization, integration (Bolman & Deal, 1993, pp). Through these methods, the organization is able to devise a division of labor that collaborates to bring about the missions and goals of an organization. The structure that comes about from this can be varied in their rigidness and flexibility it allows, and to an extent this is a great contribution to its success.

Here is a first hand account of culture, structure and systems not being in harmony. In 1994, Ticketmaster (TM) United States became a major presence in the ticketing industry. As part of their growth strategy, they expanded through the re-acquisition of all licensees. One of the licensees was the Canadian Ticketmaster business. From 1995 to 1997, TM Canada was forced to transform organizationally to become similar to our American parent. The cultural breakdown occurred when transitioning from networked “(high on sociability; low on solidarity)” to mercenary “(low on sociability; high on solidarity)” (Langton & Robbins, 2007, p. #341-342). For example, the lack of accountability

Daft, R. L. (2013). Introduction to Organizations. In S. Person (Ed.), Organizational Theory & Design (11 ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Organizational structure is the framework around which the organization is organized, the underpinnings, which keep the coalition functioning. It 's the operating manual that tells members how the organization is put together and how it works. More specifically, structure describes how members are accepted, how leadership is chosen, and how decisions are made (Nagy, 2014). With lives in their hands, hospitals have to function very precisely, executing high-quality services every hour of every day. Organizations that have this sort of requirement usually take on a vertical organizational structure (Feigenbaum, 2015). This type of structure has many layers of management, with most of the organization 's staff working in very specific, narrow, low-authority roles. The numerous layers of management are designed to make sure that no one person can throw the system off too much. This structure also ensures that tasks are being done exactly and correctly (Feigenbaum, 2015).

What are the five structural configurations, who uses these configuration methods and why do you think they (the company or organization fits into this type of configuration rather than that of the other types); as well as what type of structural configuration does my workplace currently use. So, what is the five structural configurations are as follows: “Simple Edifice, Machine Administration, Professional Government, and Adhocracy” (Nelson & Quick, 2017, pg. 244). Basically, these configurations consist of “Differentiation, integration, and the basic design dimensions combine to yield various structural configurations” (Nelson & Quick, 2017, pg. 244). These logistic edifices are usually founded on artefact and purpose in the early stages of the structural process, and formed using the matrix organization format introduced by Mintzberg. “The five rudimentary fragments of the organization, for Mintzberg, are the upper echelon, or strategic apex; the middle level, or middle line; the operating core, where work is accomplished; the technical staff, or technostructure; and the support staff” (Nelson & Quick, 2017, pg. 244). However, these five basic configurations work differently among the organizations due to the support it gives regarding the organization’s tactical purpose.

Daft, Richard L. Organizational Theory and Design: 12th edition. South-Western College Publisher. 24 April 2015

According to Miles et al. (1978, p. 547), an organization is both its purpose and the mechanism constructed to achieve the purpose. It means that the concept of organization is embracing both goals and all the elements that represent unique combination. Miles et al. (1978, p. 553) draws the conclusion that structure and the processes taking place inside the organization are closely aligned; it is hard to speak about one without mentioning the other. It is important to understand the conclusion drawn by Miles et al. (1978). It illustrates how the

Effective organizational structures define how job tasks are subdivided, grouped, coordinated, and managed. Six key components of organizational structures include division of labor, departmentalization, chain of command, span of control, centralization, and formalization (Remme, Jones, Van der Heijden, & De Bono, 2008, p. 79). Each element influence how employees interact with each other to reach organizational goals. Different structures are common in similar organizations among high performing organizations (Reimann, 1974, p. 707). The most appropriate structure will depend on the unique needs and culture of the organization.

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.

Any organization should have its own operating structure in order to reach success. Organizational structure is defined as a hierarchy of people that determine roles of authority, communications, and the duties of an organization (Robbins et al., 2013). Organizations must organize their structure to meet the needs of that particular organization, and assure that it resembles the values instilled by the organizational culture. The development of culture through an organization is a natural process that is dependent upon the instilled values of the leaders and members in the organization (O’Neil, 2011). Leaders can still influence the culture by sticking to their values and implementing a strong and effective organizational structure. There are several models that organizations can utilize to structure the elements within the organization.

At least two different organizational structures are identified, described, and compared in terms of their design principles.

Moving away from “Mechanistic” metaphor originated from the bureaucratic organizational theories in the early 1920s. Morgan (2006) presents a more biological view of the organization. Described as a living system the “Organism” metaphor is dependent on wider environment and functions. Such organizations are open systems and more inclined to adapt, grow, survive and to meet the needs of organizations to operate more efficiently. The flexibility to change to the best-suited structure also introduced. As organizations tend to appear and thrive in certain environments, the functions are adjusted to establish more orderly and stable environments. In line with Morgan’s “Organism” metaphor (Morgan. 2010), if they do not adapt, organizations become week and die when those needs not met.