Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design

Abstract

The elements of organizational structuring---which show a curious tendency to appear in five's---suggest a typology of five basic configurations: Simple Structure, Machine Bureaucracy, Professional Bureaucracy, Divisionalized Form, and Adhocracy. The elements include (1) five basic parts of the organization---the operating core, strategic apex, middle line, technostructure, and support staff; (2) five basic mechanisms of coordination---mutual adjustment, direct supervision, and the standardization of work processes, outputs, and skills; (3) the design parameters---job specialization, behavior formalization, training and indoctrination, unit grouping, unit size, action planning and performance control systems, liaison devices (such as integrating managers, teams, task forces, and matrix structure), vertical decentralization (delegation to line managers), and horizontal decentralization (power sharing by nonmanagers); and (4) the contingency factors---age and size, technical system, environment, and power. Each of the five configurations relies on one of the five coordinating mechanism and tends to favor one of the five parts. In Simple Structure, the key part is the strategic apex, which coordinates by direct supervision; the structure is minimally elaborated and highly centralized; it is associated with simple, dynamic environments and strong leaders, and tends to be found in smaller, younger organizations or those facing severe crises. The Machine Bureaucracy coordinates primarily by the imposition of work standards from the technostructure; jobs are highly specialized and formalized, units functional and very large (at the operating level), power centralized vertically at the strategic apex with limited horizontal decentralization to the technostructure; this structure tends to be found in simple, stable environments, and is often associated with older, larger organizations, sometimes externally controlled, and mass production technical systems. The Professional Bureaucracy relies on the standardization of skills in its operating core for coordination; jobs are highly specialized but minimally formalized, training is extensive and grouping is on a concurrent functional and market basis, with large sized operating units, and decentralization is extensive in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions; this structure is typically found in complex but stable environments, with technical systems that are simple and non-regulating. In the Divisionalized Form, a good deal of power is delegated to market-based units in the middle line (limited vertical decentralization), whose efforts are coordinated by the standardization of outputs, through the extensive use of performance control systems; such structures are typically found in very large, mature organizations, above all operating in diversified markets. Adhocracy coordinates primarily by mutual adjustment among all of its parts, calling especially for the collaboration of its support staff; jobs are specialized, involving extensive training but little formalization...

Purchasing Organization and Design: A Literature Review

“…To analyze the determinants and structural characteristics of POs and to assess the performance of alternative structural designs, the contingency and the configuration approach can be used (Meyer, Tsui, and Hinings 1993). Both theories study the relationship between the environment of an organization and its structure (Child 1970;Stanley 1993) and build on Mintzberg's (1980) discussion of different organizational forms. As contingency theory proposes that institutions with different organizational designs perform better when their structure is properly aligned with the conditions of the environment, organizational decisions in purchasing have to take account of performance dimensions (Child 1972).…”

“…According to Mintzberg (1980Mintzberg ( , 1981Mintzberg ( , 1991, institutional types are natural clusters or configurations of design parameters in line with their contingency factors. Ketchen, Thomas, and Snow (1993) described institutional types as clusters of attributes of organizational strategies, structural variables, and processes.…”

Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration is (Un)Necessary

“…The link between technology and organization has been the backbone of various theories of organization design, in the guise of the principle that specific patterns of interdependence map onto specific forms of co-ordination (Levinthal & Warglien, 1999;Mintzberg, 1980;Sanchez & Mahoney, 1996;Thompson, 1967;Williamson, 1985). Yet, some of the classical empirical evidence for this intuitive proposition has been severely critiqued for not establishing a clear direction of causality from interdependence to organization, and for confounding measures of the two (Perrow, 1987;Scott, 1998).…”

Model enablement in organizational design and enterprise engineering: the why, the how and the what

“…A number of good examples for explanatory design/ engineering theories have been discussed by Baskerville and Pries-Heje [3]. The organizational design example they discuss is the "Structure in Five" [16]. Mintzberg describes how effectiveness and adaptability of organizations can be ensured by creating consistency between certain design parameters like job specialization, behaviour formulization training and indoctrination, unit grouping, unit size, and others on the one hand, and consistency factors like age and size, technical design, environment and power on the other.…”