Configuration by Mintzberg

The configuration of Mintzberg is a structure proposed by Henry Mintzberg to dynamically describe organizations with different internal and external environments, tasks and leadership. On the one hand, it describes the appearance that Mintzberg sees as the result of the forces that affect the organization and, on the other hand, the behavior that is typical for such organizations.

General

Mintzberg describes organizations as assemblies of originally five, later six functional units. The work is described by Mintzberg as his most important.

The model gained significant importance through the award-winning work of Danny Miller , who relates Mintzberg's configurations to an expanded form of the competitive matrix by Michael Porter and others (D. C. Hambrick as well as Raymond Miles and Charles Snow ). In this way he combines the structural considerations of Mintzberg with strategic activities. In contrast to Porter, Miller divides the differentiation strategies into innovating differentiators and marketing differentiators. While innovating differentiators escape the competitive pressure through innovation, marketing differentiators can control the perception of their product by the buyer. Miller reveals that certain strategies can often be paired with certain configurations. In addition to analyzing the configurations of other researchers, Miller can also refer to empirical results. Here Miller names Hannan and Freeman (1977), HE Aldrich (1979) and McKelvey (1981).

Six basic elements of an organization

Mintzberg starts from a model in which he names six elements of an organization that can occur in organizations to different degrees.

No.	German	English	Brief description / examples
1	Operational core	operating core	Value-creating cost centers: production, operating theater, construction site
2	Strategic tip	strategic apex	Responsible managing director, CEO
3	Center line	middle line	Middle management, the intermediary between the CEO and the operational core
4th	Technostructure	technostructure	Auxiliary cost centers: work preparation, purchasing, development, quality assurance, etc.
5	Dummy element	support staff	Auxiliary cost centers outside the production flow, e.g. B. Canteen, PR officer, legal advisor
6th	ideology	ideology	A kind of halo of beliefs and traditions that encompasses the whole organization.

He already mentions the first five in Structure in 5’s ("Structures in 5s"). The sixth element, ideology, is added later.

Operational core

The operational core is the function point in which production takes place. Mintzberg describes all value-adding processes - in his words - “where cars are assembled and appendicums are removed” as production.

Strategic tip

Mintzberg describes the most senior manager in an organization as the strategic head. In most cases this is one person, in rare cases two (duovirate) or three people with equal rights (triumvirate).

Center line

Mintzberg describes all management functions as the center line. Here the management can be found below the strategic top in all its levels.

Technostructure

Mintzberg calls the technostructure the functional areas in which processes and workflows are defined and monitored. Here, for example, there is a construction department as well as work preparation, quality assurance or a logistics department.

Dummy element

The auxiliary staff are all additional supporting functions outside of the value-adding processes. Here Mintzberg mentions legal support, public relations, etc.

ideology

Mintzberg describes an ideology as a halo of beliefs and traditions that surround an organization . In the broadest sense, this ideology can be thought of as the organizational culture . The ideology is not part of the first work on the subject. It was added later because certain forms of organizations could not fit into the 5-way scheme.

The six elements are not always present. In some configurations, some of these elements are so weak that they hardly play a role. This happens under the influence of the organizational environment, which makes certain demands; so someone who never has litigation will not need a legal department.

Basic coordination mechanisms

Mintzberg describes coordination mechanisms that organizations use to coordinate their activities. So they serve so that the organization as a whole can fulfill its purpose. According to Mintzberg, there are six coordination mechanisms. Two of them are of a direct (ad hoc) nature, the other four consist of a certain form of standardization.

(a) Mutual Adaptation coordinates two activities in that the two performers communicate directly with one another, like two paddlers in a canoe. Obviously, this form of coordination is mainly to be found in small, simply structured organizations. Paradoxically, it is used in even the most complex, because it is the only reliable form for extremely difficult tasks.

(b) Direct supervision, usually from a central point, is the typical coordination function when mutual adjustment no longer works, e.g. B. a large canoe with 15 people.

(c) In the standardization of the work processes , the processes are prescribed, for example through work regulations.

(d) When standardizing the work results , it is not the processes that are prescribed, but the results to be achieved, whereby the means for achieving the goal are optional; an example is "dig a hole 1 × 1 m and 50 cm deep".

(e) The standardization of skills selects workers with specific knowledge and skills. The coordination takes place through the preselection.

(f) The standardization of norms means that the members of the organization have a common vision on which to guide their activities.

Letter	German	English	Brief description / examples
a	mutual adjustment	mutual adjustment	Self-organization on demand
b	direct supervision	direct supervision	Central leadership with direct authority
c	Standardization of work processes	standardization of work processes	The work steps are prescribed directly (mostly from the technostructure), i. H. the way the task is done.
d	Standardization of the work results	standardization of outputs	The regulation does not determine how to work, but what the result of the work should be.
e	Standardization of skills	standardization of skills	It is not the work process but the worker that is standardized here, so that skills and knowledge are available that are required to perform the task.
f	Standardization of the norms	standardization of norms	Standardization of norms means that workers follow shared beliefs and coordinate by following them.

All organizations carry out a division of labor. Even one-man companies carry out activities at different times. The six mechanisms that coordinate this division of labor are an essential element of the organization. In Mintzberg's words, they are the “glue” that holds the structure together.

Design parameters

Structuring organizations means changing the variables that influence the division of labor and coordination. This section explains ten such knobs or design parameters in four groups.

Design of jobs	Design of the superstructure	Design of the cross connections	Decision system design
Job specialization	Formation of departments	Control systems	vertical decentralization
Formalization of behavior	Size of the departments	Planning system	horizontal decentralization
training
indoctrination

Design of jobs

Job specialization

The first manipulated variable is the decision what each worker should do. The key decisions are specialization of the work item , i. H. how many individual tasks a worker should carry out and how much control this worker should have over their tasks. The division of labor in the organization is determined by defining these parameters.

Work tasks with little different activities are called horizontally specialized ; those with many tasks are called horizontally expanded ( job enlargement and job enrichment ).

Work tasks with little overview of when and for what purpose are called vertically specialized ; Tasks in which the worker has considerable influence on the time and type of work are called vertically extended tasks ( empowerment ).

Work items often need to be specialized vertically because they are horizontally specialized; the task is so narrowly defined that a control of the worker over the task would prevent cooperation (assembly line).

Formalization of behavior

This work design factor determines how far the behavior of the worker is standardized. Organizations standardize the behavior so that the variability is reduced and the task can be controlled (see coupling (organizational theory) ). This can be used to specialize a task vertically. Its primary task, however, is to coordinate work (coordination mechanism c). Pilots cannot coordinate with one another or with the tower through dialogue if they have to make an emergency landing. Cooperation must be ensured through preventive and trained behavioral norms.

Organizations that rely primarily on the formalization of behavior as a control mechanism are commonly referred to as bureaucracy . Despite the burdensome term “bureaucracy”, Mintzberg defines bureaucratically as ...  the extent to which an organization relies on standardization for coordination , including any type of standardization, not just behavior.

There are jobs that are too complex to be formalized by the technostructure analysts. Here, the people who are supposed to do the work need to be trained before they can do the work item. This can be institutional learning (school, college, technical school, university, etc.) or manual learning. Organizations must therefore determine what training the people who are supposed to carry out the work must have or create a training opportunity themselves.

It was previously established that training and standardization can replace one another. However, standardization mainly targets unskilled workers and shifts power into the technostructure, while training draws power from all parts of the organization and shifts it into the hands of the executing worker. This is also the main difference between the two coordination mechanisms.

The term socialization denotes the process by which individuals adopt the norms and value system of a social group. A large part of socialization in a company takes place unofficially and informally. In many ways, indoctrination is similar to training. Like training, a lot of it takes place outside of work and it conveys norms. But the nature of the norms distinguishes the two. This is not about areas of knowledge or skills, but about the norms of society, the culture of the organization.

Design of the superstructure

organization structure

Now that the work tasks have been properly defined according to specialization, formalization, training and indoctrination, the structure must now be created that formally controls the organization: departments, managers and the grouping of managers up to the one responsible person, the CEO. This structure is usually summarized in an organizational chart .

Even if the organizational chart only represents the formal (i.e. not necessarily the decisive) power in a company, it still answers a few essential questions:

• how are positions and units summarized?
• it shows which resources are shared
• how are the organizations assessed (e.g. productivity )
• strengthens cohesion because the members of a department are usually in close physical contact.

Positions and departments are usually subdivided

• Function (including knowledge, ability, process knowledge and work task)
• Markets (product, customer, geographic market)
• Methods and
• Objectives

Department size

The question of the size of departments - the so-called Span (span of control, SOC) - was an answer historically 5-6. Nevertheless, departments with hundreds of employees are empirically observed. The cause may lie in the basic assumption that there is only one coordination mechanism, direct supervision. The use of the concept of coordination mechanism best justifies the different sizes of departments. Any kind of standardization can achieve coordination that does not require any intervention by a manager. This makes it easy to justify why assembly lines with 40 or 120 people are responsible for a single manager.

The second factor to consider is the need for mutual coordination. The more a task requires mutual coordination, the smaller the size of the unit must be. The size of the unit must be chosen so that frequent, informal communication takes place; typically less than 10 people.

Design of the cross connections

With the introduction of positions, the skeleton of an organization is in place. Now the control for the organization has to be defined. Mintzberg differentiates between two fundamentally different systems. The planning system (action planning system), focused on planning before execution , and the control system , focused on determining the results after the execution . These two are inextricably linked, only the emphasis on one or the other distinguishes organizations.

Typical design elements for the design of the cross-connections are liaison positions, i.e. people, working groups, task forces that manage the interfaces between functional departments. In addition, matrix organization is used to solve the problems between functionally different departments.

Decision system design

Decision systems are more or less centralized. In the simplest case, all power is concentrated in the strategic tip. This is no longer manageable from a certain organization size. Then power has to be shared, with Mintzberg distinguishing between horizontal and vertical decentralization. Vertical decentralization is the delegation of formal power from top to bottom, while horizontal decentralization represents the distribution of formal or informal power from line positions to operational positions such as machine operators, foremen, etc. This distribution of power is described by six types of decentralization.

The first case of decentralization (Type I) is the exact opposite of this, namely the concentration of power in the strategic top, i.e. centralization . In addition, Mintzberg names the limited horizontal decentralization as Type II, in which power is distributed horizontally in the technostructure in addition to the strategic top - a professional bureaucracy. This type is complemented by limited vertical decentralization , where power is distributed in the strategic top, partly in the technostructure and the rest in the center line. Type IV represents a reversal of the expected conditions. Here all power is concentrated in the operational core. In Type V power is distributed everywhere and we see selective horizontal and vertical decentralization , except in the operational core. Finally, Type VI is decentralized and power is relatively evenly distributed across the organization.

Type II and Type IV represent two forms of bureaucracy , one of which is relatively centralized and the other is relatively decentralized.

Situational factors

Many situational factors influence the structures of an organization. Mintzberg distinguishes 16 factors in four groups:

• Age and size

• The older an organization is, the more formal it is structured;
• The larger an organization, the more formal its behavior (see also Aston Group );
• The larger an organization, the more differentiated the work tasks;
• The larger an organization, the larger the average size of the departments.

• Technical systems

• The more technical devices determine the work, the more formal the behavior.
• The more complex technical systems are, the more sophisticated the organizational structures.
• The automation of an operational core transforms a bureaucratic administrative structure into an organic one.

• environment

• The more dynamic the environment in which an organization is located, the more organic it will look.
• The more complex an environment, the more decentralized the organization that has to deal with it will be.
• The more diverse the markets of an organization, the greater the tendency will be to structure them according to markets.
• Hostile environments force organizations to temporarily centralize.
• Imbalances in the environment encourage organizations to selectively decentralize and adapt organizationally.

• Power

• The more an organization is determined from outside, for example by the supervisory board, the more central it will be.
• Organizational members' claims to power create overly centralized structures.
• Management fashions influence the structure, even when it is inappropriate.

The configurations

All of the above factors affect the configuration that an organization assumes. Mintzberg describes six forms

1. the single structure ( simple structure )
2. the machine bureaucracy ( machine bureaucracy )
3. the professional organization ( professional bureaucracy )
4. the division structure ( divisionalized form )
5. the adhocracy ( Adhocracy )
6. the form of mission ( missionary )

The simple structure

Elements of the simple structure

The simple structure is the simplest of the five configurations. This type of organization consists of a strategic point, a very weak (if not at all) pronounced center line and an operational core. Often the technostructure and auxiliary staff are not available or extremely weak.

features

In the simple structure, the dominant part of the organization is the strategic tip. It coordinates through direct control. The organization is poorly structured, as direct control would otherwise not be possible. Little training or indoctrination is used to adapt workers. At the same time, the formal system is weak, there are hardly any written instructions or regulations. If there is any grouping at all, it is usually functional. There are few, but large, departments that rely on poor planning and control mechanisms. Most decisions are made ad hoc by the decision maker. The organization is centralized (Type I).

Typically, organizations with a simple structure are young and relatively small, use comparatively simple technical systems and have to deal with dynamic, sometimes hostile environments. Such organizations are often run by their founder or an individual manager and are considered unfashionable.

Advantages and disadvantages

A big advantage of the simple structure is the flexibility that results from the small number of employees, less rigid structures and a clear hierarchy . The simple structure is more easily resistant to hostile environments through faster responsiveness and easier adaptation. The simple structure seems to be suitable to represent the basis for fast and flexible innovation processes in a simple, dynamic environment. The decisive disadvantage of this structure is the dependence on the top management, the entrepreneur as an individual. If the entrepreneur gets into a crisis, this affects the entire company. Problems also arise in times of growth or when a certain size is exceeded. The entrepreneur can then be overwhelmed because he can no longer control all areas alone.

With increasing age, the situational factors begin to affect the organization. They become more formal and structured. Then there can be crises because the leader no longer wants to let go and does not delegate competencies. This sometimes results in chaos, power struggles and a lack of capital. In order to be able to counteract these problems, a change in the organizational structure is required. This means that the simple structure is transformed into a different Mintzbergian organizational structure through the introduction of mechanisms such as standardization, formalization, programming and structuring. Additional areas such as the technical structure or auxiliary staff are then used for this.

Areas of application

The typical application of the simple structure is the small sole proprietorship, in which entrepreneurs make most of the decisions themselves. The entrepreneur has a coordination function which he performs personally. Innovative pioneering and family businesses are prime examples of the simple structure. The simple structure is also a common way of setting up companies that are then reorganized over time.

Optimal framework conditions, which Mintzberg describes as situational factors, are for the simple structure:

• a simple technology
• a relatively small company size and typically a young company age
• a simple as well as dynamic environment as well
• a central body of power that directs the company - usually the company owner.

The machine bureaucracy

The industrial bureaucracy (English machine bureaucracy : machine bureaucracy ) highlights two essential aspects of organizational design. Firstly, the connection between the organization of work processes and the organization of job relationships (forms of process design) and, secondly, the inclusion of so-called situational factors (age and size of the institution, the respective basic technology, the stability of the environment and the distribution of power and autonomy). In addition to the coordination mechanisms (forms of process design) and the situational factors (framework conditions), it also takes into account so-called design parameters (for example the formalization of behavior through job descriptions) and the relative importance of certain parts of the company organization. These parts are the management ( Strategic Apex ), the middle level ( Middle Line ), the executive level ( Operating Core ), controlling units ( Technostructure ) and supporting units ( Support Staff ).

features

The most dominant organizational element in this model is the technostructure. This is where the planning and standardization of the operational core takes place; procedural rules, horizontal and vertical distribution of competencies in the form of organizational charts, job descriptions, financial plans and decision-making routines are created. The machine bureaucracy is characterized by a well-developed administrative organizational structure and - in comparison to the simple structure - relatively centralized decision-making powers. It has units that are strongly delimited according to functions and hierarchical levels. The strategic top is the only body that has to make strategic decisions. It represents the company management, which represents the interests of the organization externally. Due to the strong tendency towards in-house production, there is a well-developed auxiliary staff.

Machine bureaucratic work is often individual work and is characterized by structurable tasks. The training is carried out in-house and used to memorize the complicated rules of the game and the regulated structure. In this form of organization, motivating employees is the task of management. When making “ make or buy ” decisions, the focus is always on the company's own production, which means that this organization creates all the auxiliary services it needs to live so that they can be better controlled. This can be a company canteen, but also a law firm, for example.

Advantages and disadvantages

The advantages of the machine bureaucracy are the reliability and stability (but only under stable environmental conditions), the transparent overall system of the organization and the clear regulation of responsibilities through standardization. Likewise, by delegating decision-making powers and defining clear procedures, there would hardly be any chaos and power struggles and efficient and cheap mass production would be made possible.

On the other hand, the inflexibility and the slow reaction to environmental changes are disadvantageous, since the information is only slowly passed on and distorted through the hierarchical communication channels. Strategy development problems can arise due to overburdening the strategic top and employees can be demotivated, as group work, work teams and innovative thinking are not encouraged due to routine work. Equally disadvantageous is the emergence of a heavy bureaucracy due to formalization, standardization, programming and structuring. If the machine bureaucracy acts as an auxiliary staff of the professional organization, there can be conflicts between these two types of organization, since the efficiency and the pursuit of compliance with the complicated procedural rules of the machine bureaucracy and the pursuit of flexible task fulfillment are opposing approaches.

application areas

The machine bureaucracy prefers stable framework conditions with simple technologies that are suitable for standardizing operational processes, as well as large company sizes. Old organizations are mostly organized as machine bureaucracies. An environment that demands security and reliability from the organization is beneficial.

This structure develops preferentially in the public sector, in the mass-producing large-scale industry, for example in the automotive industry and where reliability and security are in the foreground, i.e. banks, hotel and restaurant chains, airlines, fire departments . A classic example is the McDonald’s company . The machine bureaucracy can also act as a supportive administrative culture of the professional organization. Machine bureaucracies often arise from maturing simple structures.

The professional bureaucracy

The expertocracy, (professional organization) (English professional bureaucracy ) or professional bureaucracy arises when the support staff is particularly strong compared to the other parts of the organization.

features

The most important part of the professional organization is the operational core and the professionals working in it. The auxiliary staff, which is mainly geared towards the needs of the operational core, is also fully developed. On the other hand, the technostructure and the center line are underdeveloped, as there is no need to coordinate work in the operational core.

“ To achieve coordination, the professional organization uses the standardization of qualifications and the associated design parameters of training and indoctrination . It employs professional employees with appropriate training and indoctrination to carry out the work in the operational core and then allows them a considerable degree of control over their own work. "

- Henry Mintzberg ( Lit .: Mintzberg, p. 256 f.)

The professional employee works independently of his colleagues, but is in close contact with his customers. Coordination between the professional employees takes place through the standardization of qualifications and knowledge. The standardization and categorization of tasks is also characteristic. These are sorted and assigned to the employees in order to create clarity regarding the work tasks. In addition, there is a repertoire of standard procedures that are used in certain standardized situations - known as contingencies.

"Thus the professional employee has two basic tasks:

• Categorizing the client's needs in terms of a contingency that dictates the use of a certain standard procedure - the diagnosis ;
• the application or implementation of the respective process. "( Lit .: Mintzberg, p. 260)

A professional organization is characterized by a high degree of decentralization . A large part of the power is to be found in the operational core, since on the one hand the work of professional employees is very complex and therefore difficult to control by managers, and on the other hand the services provided are in great demand and thus bring the professional employee into a position in which he can insist on a certain autonomy. The administration has only indirect power. Your tasks are, for example, the rectification of malfunctions and the mediation between the professional employees and the outside world.

Advantages and disadvantages

The strengths of the professional organization lie primarily in categorization and standardization. However, other characteristics such as democracy and autonomy are associated with problems. Coordination problems arise on the one hand between the professional employees and the auxiliary staff, on the other hand also between the professional employees among themselves.

Discretionary problems arise when the professional employee is not sufficiently qualified or does not receive sufficient further training. “Discretion can not only seduce professionals into disregarding the needs of their clients; it also lets many employees forget the requirements of the organization. ”( Lit .: Mintzberg, p. 280)

Problems with innovations arise because they make unpleasant cooperation or interdisciplinary cooperation necessary. An attempt is also made to squeeze new problems into old categories.

application areas

Professional organizations can mainly be found in complex but stable environmental conditions. "Complex enough to require the use of difficult procedures that can only be learned in comprehensive formal training courses, but at the same time so stable that the qualifications to be expected of the employees can be well defined and consequently standardized." ( Lit. : Mintzberg, p. 272)

Examples of professional organizations are schools, universities, consulting firms, law firms, and accounting firms, but hospitals or social services can also be professional organizations.

The division structure

Division structure

The division structure (English divisionalized form ) is also called "divisional structure". It is part of the Mintzberg configuration and consists of a large strategic tip, a small technostructure and a large and well-developed auxiliary staff. The center line represents the most important part, the divisions have the structure of machine bureaucracies and form the operational core of the configuration.

features

Organizations with a divisional structure are divided into equal units or divisions . The dominant part of this organization is the center line - the heads of the individual divisions play a particularly important role here. The task of the strategic top lies primarily in the strategic alignment of the divisions to product groups or markets, i.e. H. it controls the delimitation of the business areas and the provision of financial resources to the divisions. Apart from the requirements mentioned above, the divisions are autonomous. A delegative leadership style in the form of " Management by Objectives " prevails between the divisional management and the strategic top . The results of the work are standardized, they serve the purpose of coordination and give the divisions a clear target reference - here the divisions are also referred to as semi-autonomous working groups.

There is a small but well-developed technostructure in the form of management information systems that monitor the performance results of the divisions. A number of central auxiliary services such as financial planning, tax, legal and insurance advice are available to the divisions for the provision of services. The divisional structure differs from the other four configurations in one central aspect: It is not a complete structure, but only a partial structure that lies like a frame over the divisions, which represent small machine bureaucracies.

The organization of the divisions as machine bureaucracies has the following reasons. A division is seen as a single unit with a certain number of consistent and standardized goals. These goals, given by the top, the further down the line they go, the more they translate into sub-goals and working standards, which increases the degree of bureaucratization. The division heads are responsible for ensuring that these standards are implemented within the division, which leads to centralization in the divisions. Bureaucracy and centralization are the essential elements of the machine bureaucracy preferred by all configurations in the divisions.

Advantages and disadvantages

The division structure was created to solve the problem of the machine bureaucracy's inadequate adaptability . This additional administrative framework around the divisions / machine bureaucracies enables it to adapt better to new environmental conditions and better distribute possible risks within the organization. ( Lit .: Mintzberg, Organization Design: Fashion or Fit ?, p. 111) However, there is also another side: The internal control system discourages the division managers from showing innovative ability and carrying out risky actions, because the division managers have to justify their statements . The division of risk can mean that a disaster in one division can wreak havoc on the entire organization.

The economic strength of the divisional structures lies in being able to (get) strategic synergies that can be controlled by the management through the allocation of resources. Mintzberg criticizes the fact that the performance control system of a division structure is primarily based on monetary variables and thus hides social components from the decisions.

application areas

The divisional organization is preferably to be found in a “simple and stable environment” and with great product and market diversity . Old and large organizations in particular tend to have divisional structures, and many multinational corporations are also structured in divisions.

The division organization has become very modern in the last few decades, also in the "non-business sector", such as in large hospitals and public institutions. ( Lit .: Mintzberg, Organization Design: Fashion or Fit ?, p. 111) However, Mintzberg finds the division structure unsuitable for this sector, because if the quality is not ensured by appropriate concepts, austerity measures will have a full impact on it. The challenge therefore lies in the development of cost and quality-oriented performance control and incentive systems.

The Adhocracy

Adhocracy

The term adhocracy (Engl. Adhocracy ), as part of the configuration of Mintzberg refers to a form of organization , in contrast to the bureaucracy is. The term was first made known in 1970 by Alvin Toffler . Since then it has been widely used in management theory and is often related to online organizations. The term was further developed in particular by Henry Mintzberg . In the case of adhocracy, the operational core shrinks and the remaining organizational parts become value-creating. The name adhocracy is derived from the Latin ad hoc , which can be translated as “out of the moment” or, more freely, as “specially created for this purpose”. Mintzberg himself describes this form as the most modern, as it has the greatest innovation potential and the greatest flexibility.

features

In contrast to the other forms of organization , adhocracy does not have a dominant organizational element; there is therefore a decentralization of power which, in comparison to the other models, cannot be further associated with a specific position in the organization.

As a logical consequence of this fact, it can be stated that within an adhocracy there is a strong emphasis on specialist knowledge. In its execution, the adhocracy is therefore a grouping of experts in functional or market-oriented units. Mutual coordination plays a key role in this. The "use of contact instruments to promote mutual coordination as a priority coordination mechanism" ( Lit .: Mintzberg, p. 337) is therefore increasingly used. According to Mintzberg, further design parameters are the organic structure (i.e. there are almost no standardized behavioral processes or behavioral formalizations) and horizontal task specialization based on training.

As already mentioned, all these design principles now have a positive effect on the innovation potential of an organization, since the reaction process to changing or complex environmental conditions is significantly more flexible and faster than that of organizational forms characterized by standardization . A distinction is made between operational ones, which develop innovations and problem solutions on behalf of customers, and administrative adhocracy, which carry out projects in their own interest. In the latter case, there is a strict separation between the operational and administrative areas of the company - the adhocracy is exclusively dedicated to the administrative part, with the auxiliary staff playing a particularly important role.

Advantages and disadvantages

The greatest advantage is certainly the high level of innovation and thus overlapping problem-solving potential that an adhocracy contains (see above). The decentralization of power and the consequent possibility of co-determination for each member gives a high level of motivation . One of the great weaknesses of adhocracy is its instability: the flowing and sometimes unclear adhocratic structures often cause its members to want more definitions, which in turn leads to bureaucratisation . In times of economic weakness, if there are no orders, etc., an adhocracy is also quickly led to the edge of its existence, as it causes a much higher communication effort and therefore costs.

Areas of application

Adhocracy is used in areas in which the strengths of this structure are of great necessity. These are areas such as consulting, advertising and research in the general sense. In all these areas, customers need innovative and individual solutions for their orders or problems - as already mentioned several times, the adhocracy is the most efficient variant. It is also used in industries that are also highly complex and make use of complicated technical systems. An example of this would be space travel.

Adhocrats are also brought into being in the form of projects (see project organization ) and working groups. This is why adhocrats very often arise as a “by-product” of other forms of organization. Viewed the other way round, adhocraties can also be seen “in connection with early stages in the development of organizational structures” ( Lit .: Mintzberg, p. 371).

mission

The sixth configuration is the missionary . Here the organization is dominated by the urge to missionize. The standardization of norms acts as an ideology, so that members of the organization show conformist behavior - just like monks of a Catholic order. The equality of beliefs and values ​​leads to conforming behavior and serves to synchronize activities.

features

The dominant element of the mission is the central belief. Through this, members coordinate their activities. Key to this belief is socializing new members through indoctrination. Once a newcomer has adopted the norms and values ​​of the community, he can be given considerable freedom in making decisions. In its most complete form, indoctrination leads to a great deal of decentralization.

Since no further coordination mechanisms are required apart from indoctrination, the mission can largely do without a technostructure and support staff . When a mission reaches a certain size, it tends to split up into sub-units like an amoeba (religious houses). These are the same both in terms of structure and behavior.

Typical missions are not young organizations. The ideologization of belief and value principles takes a long time. On the other hand, the structural set-up of a mission requires a stable environment, since adaptive changes in values ​​take place very slowly. Therefore, with the exception of certain religious orders, there are few very ancient missions. But they work well in peaceful environments that have little demands on their skills.

Advantages and disadvantages

Missions can exist for a very long time in peaceful environments without significantly changing. All that is required is a sufficiently large flow of new members and moderate demands on technical performance. The configuration does not make any demands on external training, trained management etc. and can function very independently for a long time.

A mission can hardly achieve rapid changes in environmental conditions that require rapid adjustments. Since the coordination mechanism is fixed in long-term beliefs and values, these cannot be adjusted quickly enough and the mission loses its inner cohesion.

Overview of the six configurations

The following table gives Mintzberg an overview for the different types. Here you can also see how the different configurations mentioned in the first part complement each other.

	Simple structure	Machine bureaucracy	professional bureaucracy	Division structure	Adhocracy	mission
primary coordination mechanism	Direct supervision	Standardization of the work item	Standardization of skills	Standardization of the work results	Mutual adaptation	Standardization of the norms
Primary part of the organization	Strategic tip	Technostructure	Operational core	Center line	Dummy element	ideology
Design parameters
specialization	Little specialization	strong horizontal and vertical specialization	strong horizontal specialization	some horizontal and vertical specialization (between central and divisions)	strong horizontal specialization	little specialization
training	little	little	much	little	much	little
indoctrination	little	little	little	some (for division managers)	quite a bit	much
Formalization of the norms of behavior, bureaucratic-organic	little formalized, organic	strongly formalized, bureaucratic	little formalized, bureaucratic	highly formalized (within the divisions: bureaucratic)	little formalized, organic	little formalized, bureaucratic
Grouping principle	usually functional	usually functional	functional and according to market	according to market	functional and according to market	according to market
Department size	wide	wide on low levels, otherwise narrow	wide on low levels, otherwise narrow	wide at the top	consistently tight	wide in individual areas of limited size
Planning and control systems	Little planning and control	Action planning	Little planning and control	Strong, perfected control	limited action planning	Little planning and control
Basis of cooperation	few bases	few bases	Bases in the administrative area	few bases	many bases throughout	few bases
(Decentralization	centralized	limited horizontal decentralization	horizontal decentralization	limited vertical decentralization	selective decentralization	decentralization
Situational factors
Age and size	usually young and small (first stage)	usually old and tall (second tier)	different	usually old and very tall (third tier)	often young	usually neither particularly young nor particularly old; great only through many small enclaves.
Technical system	simple, not regulating	regulating, but not automated, not very demanding	not regulative or demanding	differentiated, otherwise like machine bureaucracy	very demanding, often automated, otherwise not regulating or demanding	simple, not regulating
environment	simple and dynamic; sometimes hostile	simple and stable	complex and stable	relatively simple and stable; diversified markets (especially products and services)	complex and dynamic; sometimes unequal	simple and mostly stable
Power	Under the control of the CEO; often owner- manager, not fashionable	Technocratic and external control, not fashionable	Professional control, fashionable	Control at the center line, fashionable (especially in industry)	Expert control, fashionable	ideological control; Tomorrow's fashion

literature

• Grün, Oskar: Organization . In: F. Scheuch (Hrsg.): Allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre . Service Fachverlag, Vienna 1990, ISBN 3-85428-170-6 .
• Hilmar F. Henselek: The management of company configurations , Deutscher Universitätsverlag, Wiesbaden 1996
• Helmut Kasper, Wolfgang Mayrhofer: Personnel management leadership organization . 2nd Edition. Carl Ueberreuter, Vienna 1996; 3rd edition, Lindeverlag, Vienna 2002.
• Kieser, Alfred: The situational approach . In: A. Kieser (Ed.): Organization theories . 5th edition. 1998
• Henry Mintzberg [Translator: Helga Höhlein]: The Mintzberg structure. Make organizations more effective. Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg am Lech 1992, ISBN 3-478-31470-4
• Henry Mintzberg: Mintzberg on management: leadership and organization, myth and reality . Gabler, Wiesbaden 1991
• Henry Mintzberg: Organization Design: Fashion or Fit? In: Harvard Business Review , Jan./Feb. 1981
• Henry Mintzberg: The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs NJ 1979
• Henry Mintzberg: The Effective Organization: Forces and Forms. MIT Sloan Management Review, Cambridge 1991, Issue 2, p. 54
• Henry Mintzberg: Power in and around Organization. Englewood Cliffs NJ 1983

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Mintzberg, H. 1979; The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead / Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
2. ^ ^{A b c} Henry Mintzberg: Structures in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design . In: Management Science , Vol. 26, No. 3, March 1980, pp. 322-341
3. ^ ^{A b c d} Henry Mintzberg: The structuring of Organizations (1979). In: Susan Segal-Horn (Ed.): The Strategy Reader . Blackwell Business, 1998, ISBN 0-631-20901-8 ; Pp. 238-283.
4. ^ Henry Mintzberg: (1993) The Illusive Strategy ... 25 Years Later . In: Arthur Bedeian: Management Laureates: A Colloction of Autobiographical Essays . (English) JAI Press, Volume I, henrymintzberg.com ( Memento from October 11, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF)
5. ^ Strategic Management Journal 1995 Best Paper Prize
6. ^ ^{A b} Danny Miller: Configurations of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis (1986). In: Susan Segal-Horn (Ed.): The Strategy Reader . Blackwell Publishers, Oxford UK 1998, ISBN 0-631-20901-8 , The Open University Milton Keynes.
7. ^ DC Hambrick: An empirical typology of mature industrial product environments . In: Academy of Management Journal , Volume 26, 1983, pp. 213-230.
8. ↑ DC Hambrick (1983b): High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: a contigency approach . In: Academy of Management Journal , Volume 26, 1983, pp. 687-707.
9. ^ R. Miles, C. Snow: Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, McGraw-Hill, New York 1978
10. ↑ M. Hannan, J. Freeman: The population ecology of organizations . In: American Journal of Sociology, Volume 83, 1977, pp. 929-964.
11. ^ HE Aldrich: Organizations and Environments . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ 1989
12. ^ W. McKelvey: Organizational Systematics . University of California Press, Los Angeles 1981
13. ^ Bob Travica: New Organizational Designs: Information Aspects . 1999, ISBN 1-56750-403-5 , p. 7
14. ^ Mintzberg's Organizational Configurations