From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has no lead section. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, one should be written. Please discuss this issue on the talk page and read the lead section guide to make sure the introduction summarizes the article.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (November 2007)

Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. The structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new (Entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development.

They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority.

Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of standardization. They are better suited for more complex or larger scale organizations. They usually adopt a tall structure. Then tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in Burns and Stalker's (1961) distinction between mechanistic and organic structures.

The organization is structured according to functional areas instead of product lines. The functional structure groups specialize in similar skills in separate units. This structure is best used when creating specific, uniform products. A functional structure is well suited to organizations which have a single or dominant core product because each subunit becomes extremely adept at performing its particular portion of the process. They are economically efficient, but lack flexibility. Communication between functional areas can be difficult.

A matrix structure overlays two organizational forms in order to leverage the benefits of both. Some global corporations adopt a matrix structure that combines geographical with product divisions. The product-based structure allows the company to exploit global economies of scale, whereas the geographic structure keeps knowledge close to the needs of individual countries. Many organizations also have degrees of matrix structure, meaning that each divisional group has specific responsibilities, but some issues must be decided jointly across all of these groups. Instead of combining two divisional structures, some matrix structures overlap a functional structure with project teams. Employees are assigned to a cross-functional project team, yet they also belong to a permanent functional unit (e.g., engineering, marketing) to which they return when a project is completed.

Matrix structures create the unusual situation where employees have two bosses. A project team member would report to the project leader on a daily basis, but also reports to the functional leader (engineering, marketing, etc.). Some companies give these managers equal power; more often, each has authority over different elements of the employee’s or work unit’s tasks. Matrix structures that combine two divisionalized forms also have a dual-boss reporting system, but only for some employees.

Divisional structure is formed when an organization is split up into a number of self-managed units, each of which operates as a profit center. Such a division may occur on the basis of product or market or a combination of the two with each unit tending to operate along functional or product lines, but with certain key function (e.g., finance, personnel, corporate planning) provided centrally, usually at a company headquarters.

The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific (see Grey & Garsten, 2001). In the generic sense the term post bureaucratic is often used to describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980's that specifically contrast themselves with Weber's ideal type Bureaucracy. This may include Total Quality Management, Culture Management and the Matrix Organization amongst others. None of these however has left behind the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber's rational, legal type, and the organisation is still rule bound. Heckshcer, arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned up bureaucracies (Hecksher & Donellson, 1994), rather than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon Kunda, in his classic study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of bureaucratic control - the formalisation, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations - does not change in principle.....it shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization's culture'.

Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization. Heckscher and Donnellson [1994], provide a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type Post-Bureaucratic Organization in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organisation is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision making rules rather than decision making rules. This sort of horizontal decision making by consensus model is often used in Housing cooperatives, other Cooperatives and when running a non-profit or Community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower people who normally experience Oppression in groups.

Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in Complexity Theory and Organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can be used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner and colleagues (2000) studied how simple structures could be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes links to simple structures and improviseal learning. Other scholars such as Jan Rivkin, Kathleen Eisenhardt Nicolaj Sigglekow, and Nelson Repenning revive an older interest in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.

See also: Management cybernetics