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)

Brickley, J. A., Smith, C. W., & Zimmerman, J. L. (2009). Managerial economics and organizational architecture. Chicago: Irwin.

This paper will examine organizational structures, organizational systems and how organizational culture influences both structure and systems. Throughout this paper, there will an analogy to the human body to help further the understanding of the concepts of structure and systems in an organization. This analogy is based on the academic work of Goold and Campbell (Goold & Campbell, 2002). The first part of this paper will review different organizational structures. The second part will look at various organizational systems and how they may be

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

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.

Brickley, J.A., & Smith, C.W., & Zimmerman, J.L. (2009). Managerial Economics and Organizational Architecture (5th ed.). New York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

The explanation of organizational structure is of the business, in such a way to execute and meet business goals. There are two structural design types; vertical and horizontal. Vertical organizational structure graded with progressing ranks of accountability and activity as its name implies. A strong organizational structure is an equal allocation of the control, as its name implies. A strong organizational structure is an culture in which all members possess the same beliefs, value, and goals. Four companies with strong organizational structure in the industry of paid television providers are Time Warner Cable Directv, Cox communication, and Dish Network. All four of these companies have an detailed organizational structure with various levels of power structure.

The Systems Archetypes are patterns of behavior that emerge from the underlying system structure (Braun, 2002). In fact, they are the part of an organization which recognizes behaviors incorporated in the discipline of system thinking (Gillies & Maliapen, 2008). Systems archetypes can reveal insights into the structure that already exists, or anticipates potential problems and problem symptoms (Braun, 2002). Therefore, it is imperative to learn to manage archetypes with the other systems thinking tools that are available (Braun, 2002). As part of a collection of tools, they are valuable in developing broad understandings about organizations and their environments and contribute to understanding problems (Braun, 2002). Identifying and applying

Manager’s of an organization has to use structure to help the company run efficiently. “The five types of organizational structures are functional, divisional, matrix, team-based, and virtual network” (Draft, 2013, p.316). Functional structure in an organization that is developed by grouping departments by the skills, level of knowledge, activities done daily, and the resource used. “This structure places specific departments from the bottom to the top” (Draft, 2013, p.318). For example, specific departments such as: human resources, accounting, engineering, and manufacturing are placed at the top, while there are mostly seen at the bottom in other organizations. While common functions such as; people, facilities, and other resources are combined together as a single department instead of being divided into multiple departments.

Organization as a Machine – the organization is based on quality, efficiency and the timeliness of processes, which are made up of intertwining parts. Those

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.

In the context of management, organisation structure is a backbone of an organisation. Mintzberg (1980) suggested five general types of organisation configuration, constituted by coordinating different elements of organisation (basic parts of organisation, coordinating mechanisms, design parameters and contingency factors), which will be illustrated indirectly as preferring to present in different version to describe Mintzberg’s configurations in this essay. In effect, his suggested structures are related to scientific management in some senses. This essay will reveal the abstract of Mintzberg’s five configurations with arguments, and personal perspectives of how his work help us gain more understanding beyond scientific management in terms of contingency factors and standardization.

The focus of the paper is the organizational framework. The Y-axis has the environment of the organization with Formal at one end and Flexible at the other end, and the X-axis has the role of the leader with Autocratic on one end and Democratic on the other. The framework will discuss the major relevant contributions of the following theorists; Max Weber, Frederick W. Taylor, Luther H. Gulick, Mary Parker Follet, Elton Mayo, Chester Barnard, Herbert A. Simon, Charles E. Lindblom, and Dwight Waldo.

Supporting Ideas A paradigm is a basic assumption about reality. Therefore, paradigms determine what is considered to be a "fact", and what can be disregarded with impunity. Prior to the 1980s, the following management paradigms held: 1. Only businesses are concerned with management philosophies and practices. 2. There is only one right way to manage people. 3. There is only one correct organizational structure. 4. Managers focus solely on internal issues. Since the 1980s, however, the paradigm, the underlying assumptions of management has changed considerably. The old paradigms have actually become obstacles, and they must be replaced. The new emerging paradigms of management are: 1. Management practice does not just apply to businesses. It is valuable in any and all organizations. At the beginning of the last century, almost everyone was engaged in economic activities to survive. In the next century, however, more and more people will move into nonprofit social activities. It is in this area that systematic, principle-based management can produce impressive results. 2. There is no "right" or "wrong" organizational structure. The object is to develop a structure that fits the task. History has shown there is no "right" or "wrong" way to structure an organization. Instead, the structure should be viewed simply as a tool for enhancing productivity -- and whatever enhances productivity and builds on strengths

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