Mintzberg (1981) mentioned two types of Adhocracy, the first one is Operating Adhocracy, stressing on innovation between teams to tackle tasks creatively, unlike professional bureaucracy that applies standard programs as solution. Mixed structure blends operation and administration together to work. However, high vulnerability and uncertainty certainly encourage reconfiguration when organisation grows. Another one is Administrative Adhocracy, aiming on operating innovatively to serve itself. Operation is usually truncated by automation and out-contracted that separate from administration; automatic and complicated production gives support staff power over technical decisions.
This structure is adaptive, flexible and innovation-driven that …show more content…
However, I argue that Mintzberg included an ingredient that scientific management did not take account of, which is contingency factor. The factors included in Mintzberg’s suggestion are age and size, technical system, environment and power (Mintzberg, 1980, pp.327-328). In this case, the assumption of scientific management is contrasted. Taylorism believes there is one best method to perform a job most efficiently (Freedman, 1992, p.28). However, it is doubted by contingency factor which is explained by contingency theory that there is no one best way to perform a task due to different situation manager confronts and no approach is applicable across unique situations (Kumar and Sharma, 2000, p.83). Reasonably, if an organisation confronts different environments and situations, in order to achieve efficiency as the overall objective of organisation, its structure or workflow must be changed, corresponding to the situation as mentioned and to again find the best method to preserve organisational efficiency. For instance, when an organisation is just a start-up, units are not many and large, little specialization, formalization and hierarchy may be involved, but in Minzberg’s explanation, when it grows larger, it should have larger size and more unit differentiation, more elaborated structure, specialization of tasks and administrative components (Mintzberg, 1980, p.327). One similar example of changing the structure due to contingency factor is IBM, because of highly competitive computer industry, IBM decided to decentralize the power to low level of organisation and reduced redundant tasks to react more quickly and efficiently (Kumar and Sharma, 2000,
This structure is adaptive, flexible and innovation-driven that …show more content…
However, I argue that Mintzberg included an ingredient that scientific management did not take account of, which is contingency factor. The factors included in Mintzberg’s suggestion are age and size, technical system, environment and power (Mintzberg, 1980, pp.327-328). In this case, the assumption of scientific management is contrasted. Taylorism believes there is one best method to perform a job most efficiently (Freedman, 1992, p.28). However, it is doubted by contingency factor which is explained by contingency theory that there is no one best way to perform a task due to different situation manager confronts and no approach is applicable across unique situations (Kumar and Sharma, 2000, p.83). Reasonably, if an organisation confronts different environments and situations, in order to achieve efficiency as the overall objective of organisation, its structure or workflow must be changed, corresponding to the situation as mentioned and to again find the best method to preserve organisational efficiency. For instance, when an organisation is just a start-up, units are not many and large, little specialization, formalization and hierarchy may be involved, but in Minzberg’s explanation, when it grows larger, it should have larger size and more unit differentiation, more elaborated structure, specialization of tasks and administrative components (Mintzberg, 1980, p.327). One similar example of changing the structure due to contingency factor is IBM, because of highly competitive computer industry, IBM decided to decentralize the power to low level of organisation and reduced redundant tasks to react more quickly and efficiently (Kumar and Sharma, 2000,