[Harvard Business Review] Organization_Design_Fashion_or_Fit

raanization ash ion or Fit♀ by Henry Mintzberg 曹H 删r时dι伽出山Busi山m阳阳S臼mim眈n肘e侃 Re们创附V札时i止ew R巳print 81106 eSlgn: JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1981 Organization Design: Fashion or Fit♀ by Henry Mintzberg • A conglomerate takes ov巳r a smalllllanufacturer and tries to illlpose budgets, pl扭5， organizational charts, and untold systems on it. The result: de- clining sales and product innovation- and near bankruptcy-until 由e division managers buy back the company and promptly turn it around. • Consultants make constant offers to introduce the latest management techniques. Y巳ars ago LRP and OD were in style, later, QWL and ZBB • A governrnent sends in its analysts to rat ional- ize, standardize, and forlllalize citywide school systellls, hospitals, and w巳lfare agencies. The results ar巳 devastating. These incidents suggest that a gr巳at many prob- lems in organizational design stem from the assump- tion that organizations ar巳 all alike: mere collections of component parts to which elements of structure can be added and del巳t巳d at wil1, a sort of organiza- tional bazaar. The opposite assumption is that effective organiza- tions achieve a coherence among their component parts, that they do not change one element without consid巳ring the consequ巳nc巳s to all of th巳 others Spans of control, degrees of job enlarg巳ment， forms of dec巳ntralization， planning syst巳ms， and matrix structure should not be picked and chosen at random. Rather, they should be s巳lected according to inter- nally consist巳nt groupings. Alld thes巳 groupmgs should be consistent with the situation of the organi- zation- its age and size， 也已 conditions of the indus- try in which it op巳rates， and its production technol- ogy. In essence, lik巳 all phenomena from atollls to stars, the characteristics of organizations fall into natural clusters, or configuratiοns. When these char- Wby has it taken the automobile industry 80 long to adllpt to the cry for smllller cllr.μ Why does a film production group leave its ιonglomerate company to start on its 01叩t 讥'hy do so many pllblic hospitals and universities v,rither under government controlsi These questions clln be lln- swered in many ways, with lots of reasons. But one reason common to them aIl, tbe all thor of tbis articJe w ould say, is that some element in the organization's design was ilI suited to the task. Large mllι缸ne burellllcracies are perfect fore.荫icient mllSs production but not for adllpting quickly tonιw situations. Film production divisions rely onβ邸， ible stmct盯'es in order to innovate, which is difficult to achieve in a conglomerate that controls operations with the bottom line. Finally, Pllblic hospitals and ullÍvers山白 require a form of professionaI control incompatible l>Irith the teclmocratic standards governments tend to impose. The llwhor of this llrticJe has fOllnd that many organiza- tionsfall ι:losetoone οffivenatural "con户'♂uations， " each a combinaton of ιertllin elements of stmcture and si阳咱 们ion. Wben mllnagers and organizational designers try to mix and match the eleme11ts o{ different ones, they nllly emerge with II mi.呐t thllt, Iike lln ill-ιllt piecι of cJot却ng， won't wear lfe巧， we1l. The kε'y to organizational design, then, is consistency llnd coherence. Mr. Mintzberg is professor in the factùty of management at McGill University. This is third HBR articIe; his first, "Tbe Manager's fob: Folklorι llnd Fact, "won the MιKinsey Award in 1975. The current artiιle is adapted from his most recent book, The Stmcturing of Organizations (Pren - tice-Hall, 1979) Copyright @ 1980 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. All rights reserved. EXHIBrT 1 The Five Basic Parts of the Organization A Operating core B Techno- Strategic apex Operating core acteristics are mismatched-when 由e wrong ones are put together- the organization does not function effectively, does not achi巳ve a natura1 harmony. If managers are to desi伊 effective organizations, they need to pay attention to th巳 fit. If w巳 100k at th巳 enormous amount of research on organizationa1 structuring in light of this id叽 a 10t of the confusion fa11s away and a striking con vergence is revealed. Specifically, five clear configurations 巳merge that are distinct in their structures, in the situations in which th巳y are found, and even in the p巳riods of history in which they first developed. They are the simple structurc, machin巳 bureaucracy， pro- fessional bureaucracy, divisionalized form, and ad- hocracy. In this articl巳 Id巳scribe th巳se configurations and consider the messages they contain for managers. DERIVING THE CONFIGURATIONS In order to describe and distinguish th巳 five configu- rations, 1 d巳signed an adaptable picture of five com- HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW January-February 1981 Techno- Support staff ponent par ts (see part A, Exhibit 1). An organization begins with a person who has an ìdea. This person forms th巳 st.rat略ic apex, or top managem巳nt. He or she hires peop1e to do the basic work of th巳 organiza­ tion, in what can be ca11ed the operating core. As the organization grows, it acquires intennediate manag- 巳rs b巳tw巳巳n th巳 chief executive and the workers. T hese managers form the middlι line. The organiza- tion may also find that it needs two kinds of staff personnel. First are the analysts who design systems concerned with th巳 forma1 planning and control of the work; 由巳y form the technost.ructure. S巳cond is the support staff, providing indirect servic巳S to the rcst of the organization- everything from the cafete- ria and th巳 mail room to the public relations depart- ment and the legal counsel. These five parts together make the whoIe organi- zation (see part B, Exhibit 1). Not a11 organizations n巳ed a11 of these parts. Som巳 us巳 few and are simple, oth巳rs combine a11 in rather compl巳x ways. The cen- tral purpose of structure is to coordinat巳 th巳 work divided in a vari巳ty of waysi how that coordination is 3 EXHIBπ2 The Five Configuralions Simple sl阳C阳re J Machine bureaucracy achieved- by whom and with what-dictat巳s what the organization wi1l 10ok lik巳 (see Exhibit 2): 4 • In the simplest case, coordination is achieved at the strategic apex by direct supelvision- the chief executive officer gives the orders. The con- figuration called simple structuIe 巳merg巳s， with a minimum of staff and middle line. • When coordination depends on th巳 stand­ ardizatiol1 of work, an organization's entire ad- ministrative structure - especially its techno- structure, which designs the standards- needs to be elaborated. This gives rise to the configura- tion cal1ed machine bureaucracy. • When, instead, coordination is through th巳 standardization of ski l1s of its employ巳es， the Professional bureaucracy Divisionalized form Adhocracy 二j 人 ............... /" ~ 1'- J ) organization needs highly trained professionals in its operating core and considerable support staff to back them up. Neither its t巳chnostruc­ ture nor its middl巳 line is ve巧r elaborate. The resulting configuration is called professional bu- reaucracy. • Organizations will som巳times b巳 divided into parallel operating nnits, allowing autonomy to the middle-line managers of each, with coordi- nation achieved through the standardization οf outputs (including performance) of these units. The configuration called the divisionalized form emerges. • Finally, the 1口ost complex organizations 巳ngag巳 sophisticat巳d specialists, especially in their sup- port staffs, and requir巳 th巳m to combine th巳H HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW Janu缸子February 1981 已fforts in proj巳ct t巳ams coordinat巳d by mutual adjustmβnt. This results in the adhocracy con- figuration, in which lin巳 and staff as w巳11 as a number of other tüstinctions tend to break down. 1 sha11 describe each of thesc fiv巳 configurations in t巳rms of structure and situation. But first let me list the el巳ments of structure, which are described in mor巳 detail in th巳 App巳ndix. These include the fol - lowing: • Specialization of tasks • Formalization of procedures (job descriptions, rules, and so forth) • Formal training and indoctrination required for thejob • Grouping of units (notably by function p臼­ formed or market served) • Siz巳 of each of the units (that is, the span of control of its manager) • Action planning and performance control sys- tems • Liaison d巳VIC巳s， such aS task forces, integrating managers, and matrix structure • Delegation of pow巳:r down the chain of authority (call巳d vertical decentralization). • De1egation of power out from that chain of authority to non-m皿agers (ca11edhorizontal de- centralization). Also includ巳d in the Appendix, together with their impact on these elements of structure, are the situ- ationa1 factors- namely, the age and size of the or- ganization, its technical system of production, and various characteristics of its envìronment (e.g., how stable or complex it is) and of its power system (e.g., how tightly it is contro11ed externally.) Our job now is to see how a11 of these elem巳nts cluster into the fiv巳 configurations.I describe each in the sections that follow and summarize these de- scriptions in Exhibit 3, where a11 the elements ar巳 displayed in relation to the configurations. In th巳 discussions of each configuration, it should become more evident how a11 of its elements of structure and situation form th巳mselves into a tightly knit, highly cohesive package. No one element determines thc others; rather, a11 are locked together to form an int巳grated syst巳m. Simple Structure The name tells all, and Exhibit 2 shows a11. The structure is simple- not much mor巳 than on巴 large unit consisting of one or a few top manag巳rs and a group of operators who do the basic work. The most common simple structure is, of course, thc classic entrepreneuria1 company. HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW January-February 1981 What characterizes this configuration abovc a11 is what is missing. Little of its behavior is standardized or formalized, and minimal use is made of p1anning, training, or the liaison devices. The absence of stand- ardization means that the organization has little nced for staff analysts. Few middle-line managers are hired because so much of 由巳 coordination is achieved at the strategic apex by direct supe凹ision. That is where the real power in this configuration lies. Even the support staff is minimized to keep the structure lean and flexible- simple structures would rather buy than make. The organization must be flexible because it oper- ates in a dynamic environment, often by choice be- cause that is the one place it can outmaneuv巳r the bureaucraci巳s. And 出at environment must be sim- pl巳， as must the organization's system of production, so that the chief executive can retain highly c巳ntral­ iz巳d contro1. ln turn, centralized control makes the simple structure ideal for rapid, flexible innovation, at least of th巳 simple kind. With the right chief executive, the organization can turn on a dime and run circles around the slower-moving bureaucraci巳s. That is why so much innovation comes not from the giant mass pröducers but from sma11 entrepreneurial companies. But where complex forms of innovation are required, the simp1e $tructure fa1t巳rs becaus巳 of its centralization. As we sha11 see, that kind of inno- vation requires another configuration, one that en- gages high1y trained sp巳cialists and gives them con- siderable power. Simple structures are often young and sma11, in part because aging and growth encourage them to bureaucratize but also because th巳ir vulnerability causes many of them to fail. They never get a chance to grow old and large. One heart attack can wip巳 them out- as can a chief 巳xecutive so obsessed with inno- vation that he or she forg巳ts about the operations, or vice versa. Th巳 corporate landscape is littered with the wrecks of entrepreneurial companies whose lead- ers encouraged growth and mass production yet could never accept the transition to bureaucratic forms of structure that these chang巳sr巳quired. Yet some simp1e structures have managed to grow very 1arge und巳rth巳 tight control of clever, autocratic lead巳rs， the most famous example being the Ford Motor Co . in the later years of its founder. Almost all organizations begin their liv巳sas simple structur巳s， granting their founding chief executives ωnsiderable 1atitude to set them up. And most revert to simple structure- no matter how large or what other configuration normally fits their n巴巴ds-when they face extreme pressure or hostility in their envi- ronment. ln other words, S)响已ms and procedures are suspended as pow巳r reverts to th巳 chief executive to give him or her a chance to set things right 5 EXHIBrT 3 Dimensions of the Five Configurations SIMPLE MACHINE PROFESSIONAL DIVISIONAL- STRUCTURE BUREAUCRACY BUREAUCRACY IZED FORM ADHOCRACY KeyMeøns 01 Direcl supe阿ision Stondardization Standardization Standardization Mutual adjustment Coordination o f work of skills 。f outputs KeyPort 01 Strategic apex Technostructure Operating core Middle line Suplth porfsfoH Organízatíon (with oper口ting core In oper口ting 。dhocracy) STRυCTURAL ELEMENTS 5pe