Fleshing Out the Superstructure: Liaison Devices in Organization

Often, neither direct supervision nor all three forms of standardization are sufficient to achieve the coordination an organization requires. In other words, important interdependencies remain after all the individual posi-tions have been designed, the superstructure built, and the planning and control systems set in place. The organization must then turn to mutual adjustment for

Some Conceptual Cuts at Centralization / Decentralization in Organization

So far, all this seems clear enough. But that is only because we have not yet looked inside that black box called decentralization. The fact is that no one word can possibly describe a phenomenon as complex as the distribution of power in the organization. Consider the following questions: Which is more centralized: a

Vertical Decentralization in Organization

Vertical decentralization is concerned with the delegation of decision-mak- ing power down the chain of authority, from the strategic apex into the middle line. The focus here is on formal power—to make choices and authorize them—as opposed to the informal power that arises from advis- ing and executing. Three design questions arise in vertical

Horizontal Decentralization in Organization

Now we turn to the question of horizontal decentralization—namely, to the shift of power from managers to nonmanagers (or, more exactly, from line managers to staff managers, analysts, support specialists, and opera- tors). An assumption in our discussion of vertical decentralization was that power—specifically formal power, or authority—rests in the line structure of the

Organizational Decentralization in Fives

Five distinct types of vertical and horizontal decentralization seem to emerge from our discussion. These can, in fact, be placed along a single continuum, from centralization in both dimensions at one end to decentral- ization in both at the other. There are shown in Figure 5-4, as distortions of our logo (where, it should

Fitting Design to Situation: Two Views of Organizational Fitting Design to Situation: Organizational Effectiveness

A number of researchers have studied the relation between structure and performance, typically by comparing the structures of high- and low-per- formance firms. Their tendency has been to attribute effectiveness to the fit between certain design parameters and some situational factor—for exam- ple, the size of the organization, the technical system it uses, or

Fitting Design to Situation: Technical System of Organization

It has been difficult up to this point to keep from discussing technology as a factor in organization design. Clearly, structure is tightly intertwined with it. But before considering how, we must make quite clear what we mean by the terms we shall use. Technology is a broad term that has been used—and abused—in

Fitting Design to Situation: Environment of Organization

We have so far discussed the influence on structure of factors intrinsic to the organization itself—its age, its size, and the technical system it uses in its operating core. But every organization also exists in a milieu to which it must respond when designing its structure. Now we consider situational factors associated with this

Fitting Design to Situation: Power in Organization

Organizations do not always adopt the structures called for by their imper- sonal conditions—their ages and sizes, the technical systems they use, the stability, complexity, diversity, and hostility of their environments. A number of power factors also enter into the design of structure, notably the presence of external control of the organization, the personal

Organizational Design as Configuration

Throughout this book, ever since the introduction of the five coordinating mechanisms in its first pages, we have seen growing convergences in its findings. For example, the standardization of work processes was seen in Chapter 1 to relate most closely to the view of the organization as a system of regulated flows. Then in

The Simple Structure: Description of the Basic Structure

The Simple Structure is characterized, above all, by what is not—elabo- rated. Typically, it has little or no technostructure, few support staffers, a loose division of labor, minimal differentiation among its units, and a small managerial hierarchy. Little of its behavior is formalized, and it makes minimal use of planning, training, and the liaison

Conditions of the Simple Structure

Above all, the environment of the Simple Structure tends to be at one and the same time simple and dynamic. A simple environment can be com- prehended by a single individual, and so enables decision making to be controlled by that individual. A dynamic environment means organic structure: Because its future state cannot be

Some Issues Associated with Simple Structure

In the Simple Structure, decisions concerning strategy and operations are together centralized in the office of the chief executive. Centralization has the important advantage of ensuring that strategic response reflects full knowledge of the operating core. It also favors flexibility and adaptability in strategic response: only one person need act. But centralization can also

The Machine Bureaucracy: Description of the Basic Structure

A clear configuration of the design parameters has held up consistently in the research: highly specialized, routine operating tasks; very formalized procedures in the operating core; a proliferation of rules, regulations, and formalized communication throughout the organization; large-sized units at the operating level; reliance on the functional basis for grouping tasks; relatively centralized power

Conditions of the Machine Bureaucracy

We began our discussion of the basic structure with the point that the work flow of the Machine Bureaucracy is highly rationalized, its tasks simple and repetitive. Now we can see that such machine bureaucratic work is found, above all, in environments that are simple and stable. The work of com- plex environments cannot

Some Issues Associated with Machine Bureaucracy

No structure has evoked more heated debate than the Machine Bureau- cracy. As one of its most eminent students has noted: On the one hand, most authors consider the bureaucratic organization to be the embodiment of rationality in the modern world, and, as such, to be intrinsically superior to all other possible forms of

The Basic Structure of the Professional Bureaucracy

1. The work of the operating core Here again we have a tightly knit configuration of the design parameters. Most important, the Professional Bureaucracy relies for coordination on the standardization of skills and its associated design parameter, training and indoctrination. It hires duly trained and indoctrinated specialists— professionals—for the operating core, and then gives

Conditions of the Professional Bureaucracy

This third configuration appears wherever the operating core of an orga- nization is dominated by skilled workers—professionals—who use pro- cedures that are difficult to learn, yet are well defined. This means an environment that is both complex and stable—complex enough to require the use of difficult procedures that can be learned only in extensive

Some Issues Associated with Professional Bureaucracy

The Professional Bureaucracy is unique among the five configurations in answering two of the paramount needs of contemporary men and women. It is democratic, disseminating its power directly to its workers (at least those who are professional). And it provides them with extensive autono- my, freeing them even of the need to coordinate closely

The Basic Structure of the Divisionalized Form

1. The design parameters Most important, the Divisionalized Form relies on the market basis for grouping units at the top of the middle line. Divisions are created accord- ing to markets served and are then given control over the operating func- tions required to serve these markets. Thus, in Figure 11-1, a typical organigram