DESIGN AS CONFIGURATION

Presented by J. B. Nangpuhan II (MPA Student) for the class (Organizational Design) of Dr. S. K. Kim at Chonnam National University, South Korea. 2010

SUMMARY

KEY TERMS:
·         configuration – 구성, 형태
·         bureaucracy – 관료제
·         divisionalization -
·         adhocracy - 애드호크라시

INTRODUCTION

Throughout this book, ever since the introduction of the five coordinating mechanisms in its first pages, we have seen growing convergences in its findings. In effect, the elements of our study – the coordinating mechanisms, design parameters, and situational factors – all seem to fall into natural clusters, or configurations.

It will be recalled that in our discussion of the effective structuring of organizations in the last chapter, two hypotheses were put forward. The congruence hypothesis or situational hypothesis, which postulates that effective organizations select their design parameters to fit their situation. Now we take up the configuration hypothesis, which postulates that effective organizations achieve an internal consistency among their design parameters as well as compatibility with their situational factors – in effect, configuration. These configurations are reflected in the convergences of this book. Of how many configurations we need to describe all organizations is based on the mathematical “pⁿ” possible combinations, but it’s quite a large number in reality.

The number “five” has appeared repeatedly in our discussion. First is the five basic coordinating mechanisms, then the five basic parts of the organization, later we have the five basic types of decentralization. Five is also a sign of union (Pythagoreans), symbol of man (Dictionnaire des Symboles). For the ancient writers, five was the essence of the universal laws – five colors, five flavors, five tones, five metals, five viscera, five planets, five orients, five regions of space, five senses, five colors of rainbows.

 

Five Configurations of Structure and Situation

The five configurations are the following: (1) simple structure; (2) machine bureaucracy; (3) professional bureaucracy; (4) divisionalized form; (5) adhocracy. The table below indicates summarized one-to-one correspondence among all our fives. In each configuration, a different one of the coordinating mechanisms is dominant, a different part of the organization plays the most important role, and a different type of decentralization is used. Note that we shall see in Chapter 12 two basic types of Adhocracies – in the second type is more like the professional bureaucracy in which the operating core becomes a key part. 

Structural Configuration	Prime Coordinating Mechanism	Key Part of Organization	Type of Decentralization
Simple Structure	Direct Supervision	Strategic Apex	Vertical and Horizontal Centralization
Machine Bureaucracy	Standardization of Work Processes	Technostructure	Limited Horizontal Decentralization
Professional Bureaucracy	Standardization of Skills	Operating Core	Vertical and Horizontal Decentralization
Divisionalized Form	Standardization of Outputs	Middle Line	Limited Vertical Decentralization
Adhocracy	Mutual Adjustment	Support Staff	Selective Decentralization

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We can explain this correspondence by considering the organization as being pulled in five different directions, each by one of its parts. Please refer to Figure 7-1 on page 154 of the book for the five pulls on the organization. Most organizations experience all five pulls; however, to the extent that conditions favor one over the other, the organization is drawn to structure itself as one of the configurations.

1.       Simple structure configuration emerges as an organizational structure when the strategic apex exerts a pull for centralization, by which it can retain control over decision making. This is achieved when coordination relies upon direct supervision.

2.       Machine bureaucracy emerges when the technostructure exerts its pull for standardization – notably for that of work processes, the tightest form – because the design of the standards is its raison d’être. This amounts to a pull of limited horizontal decentralization.

3.       Professional bureaucracy emerges when the members of the operating core seek to minimize the influence of the administrators – managers as well as analysts – over their work. The operators promote horizontal and vertical decentralization leading to an autonomous working relationship. Achieving whatever coordination is necessary through the standardization of skills – professionalism, for a reliance on outside training that enhances their skills.

4.       Divisionalized form emerges as an organizational structure when the managers of the middle line also seek autonomy but must achieve it in a very different way – by drawing power down from the strategic apex and, if necessary, up from the operating core, to concentrate it in their own units. They favor limited vertical decentralization as they exert a pull to Balkanize the structure, to split it into market-based units that can control their own decisions. Coordination is restricted to the standardization of their outputs.

5.       Adhocracy configuration emerges when the support staff (owing to their expertise) gains the most influence in the organization as they are called for during decision making processes. This happens when the organization is structured into work constellation to which power is decentralized selectively and that are free to coordinate within and between themselves by mutual adjustment. But this influence is not when its members are autonomous.

 

These five configurations are the subject of the remaining chapter of the book. The description of each serves two purposes: (1) it enables us to proposes a fundamental way to categorize organizations – and the correspondence that we have seen give us some confidence in asserting that fundamentality; (2) by allowing us to draw together the material of the first six chapters, the descriptions serve as an excellent way to summarize and, more important, to synthesize the findings of this book.

In describing these configurations, we drop the assumption that the situational factors are the independent variables, those that dictate the choice of the design parameters. Instead, we shall take a “systems” approach by treating our configurations of the contingency and structural parameters as “gestalts”, clusters of tightly interdependent relationships. Organizations – at least effective ones – appear to change whatever parameters they can – situational as well as structural – to maintain the coherence of their gestalts.

Each of the next five chapters describes one of the configurations, drawing its material from every chapter of our reference book. Each chapter begins with a description of the basic structure of the configuration: how it uses the coordinating mechanisms and the design parameters, as well how it functions – how authority, material, information, and description processes flow through its five parts. Then followed by a discussion of the conditions of the configuration – the factors of age, size, technical system, environment, and power typically associated with it (conclusions are summarized in Table 12-1). Finally, each chapter closes a discussion of some of the more important social issues (from the author) associated with the configuration.

To sharpen differences and so to better understand the points of our reference book, there are times that such realities are being explained in a caricature, or stereotype manner. So we can see that the case for each configuration is overstated to make it clearer. Each configuration is a pure type, a theoretically consistent combination of the situational and design parameters.

 

Reference: Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 151-156