Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in

Article Talk Read Edit View history Search Wikipedia

Organizational structure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main page An organizational structure defines how activities such as task allocation, coordination, and supervision are directed toward Business administration
Contents [1]
the achievement of organizational aims. Management of a business
Featured content
Current events Organizational structure affects organizational action and provides the foundation on which standard operating procedures and Accounting [show]

Random article routines rest. It determines which individuals get to participate in which decision-making processes, and thus to what extent their Business entities [show]
Donate to Wikipedia views shape the organization’s actions.[2]Organizational structure can also be considered as the viewing glass or perspective Corporate governance [show]
Wikipedia store through which individuals see their organization and its environment.[2] Corporate law [show]

Interaction Organizations are a variant of clustered entities.[3] Corporate title [show]

Economics [show]
Help An organization can be structured in many different ways, depending on its objectives. The structure of an organization will
About Wikipedia Finance [show]
determine the modes in which it operates and performs. Organizational structure allows the expressed allocation of
Community portal Types of management [show]
responsibilities for different functions and processes to different entities such as the branch, department, workgroup, and
Recent changes Organization [show]
individual.
Contact page
Trade [show]
Organizations need to be efficient, flexible, innovative and caring in order to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.[4]
Tools Business and economics portal
What links here Contents [hide]
· ·
Related changes
1 Types
Upload file
1.1 Pre-bureaucratic structures
Special pages
1.2 Bureaucratic structures
Permanent link
Page information 1.3 Post-bureaucratic
Wikidata item 1.4 Functional structure
Cite this page 1.5 Divisional structure
1.6 Matrix structure
In other projects
1.7 Organizational circle
Wikimedia Commons
1.8 Team
Wikiquote
1.9 Network
Print/export 1.10 Virtual
Create a book 1.11 Hierarchy-community phenotype model
Download as PDF 2 History
Printable version
3 Military Command and Control
Languages 4 Operational and informal

‫اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‬
5 Configurations of organizational structure according to Mintzberg
Español 5.1 Parts of organization
‫ﻓﺎر‬ 5.2 Mechanisms of coordination
Français 5.3 Configurations of organizations
िह ी 6 Bibliography
Bahasa Indonesia
7 See also
Português
8 References
Русский
中文

15 more Types [ edit ]

Edit links
See also: Hierarchical organization and Flat organization

Pre-bureaucratic structures [ edit ]

Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. The
structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new
(entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development.

They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority.

Bureaucratic structures [ edit ]

Weber (1948, p. 214) gives the analogy that “the fully developed bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly
as does the machine compare with the non-mechanical modes of production. Precision, speed, unambiguity, … strict subordination,
reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic
administration.”[6] Bureaucratic structures have a certain degree of standardization. They are better suited for more complex or larger
scale organizations, usually adopting a tall structure. The tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in
Burns and Stalker's[7] distinction between mechanistic and organic structures.

The Weberian characteristics of bureaucracy are:

Clear defined roles and responsibilities

A hierarchical structure
Respect for merit

Bureaucratic structures have many levels of management ranging from senior executives to regional managers, all the way to
department store managers. Since there are many levels, decision-making authority has to pass through more layers than flatter
organizations. A bureaucratic organization has rigid and tight procedures, policies and constraints. This kind of structure is reluctant to
adapt or change what they have been doing since the company started. Organizational charts exist for every department, and
Large international organisation
everyone understands who is in charge and what their responsibilities are for every situation. Decisions are made through an bureaucratic structure: the League of
organizedaucratic structures, the authority is at the top and information is then flowed from top to bottom. This causes for more rules Nations in 1930.[5]
and standards for the company which operational process is watched with close supervision. Some advantages for bureaucratic
structures for top-level managers are they have a tremendous control over organizational structure decisions. This works best for managers who have a command and control
style of managing. Strategic decision-making is also faster because there are fewer people it has to go through to approve.[citation needed] A disadvantage in bureaucratic
structures is that it can discourage creativity and innovation in the organization. This can make it hard for a company to adapt to changing conditions in the marketplace.

Post-bureaucratic [ edit ]

The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific.[8] In the generic sense the term post bureaucratic
is often used to describe a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with Weber's ideal type bureaucracy. This may include total quality
management, culture management and matrix management, amongst others. None of these however has left behind the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist,
authority is still Weber's rational, legal type, and the organization is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned up bureaucracies,[9] rather
than a fundamental shift away from bureaucracy. Gideon Kunda, in his classic study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of bureaucratic control - the
formalization, codification and enforcement of rules and regulations - does not change in principle.....it shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization's culture'.

Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organization.,[9] provide a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an
organization that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an ideal type, the post-bureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on
dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture
management); there is an emphasis on meta-decision-making rules rather than decision-making rules. This sort of horizontal decision-making by consensus model is often
used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a non-profit or community organization. It is used in order to encourage participation and help to empower
people who normally experience oppression in groups.

Still other theorists are developing a resurgence of interest in complexity theory and organizations, and have focused on how simple structures can be used to engender
organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner et al. (2000) studied how simple structures could be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product development. Their
study makes links to simple structures and improviser learning. Other scholars such as Jan Rivkin and Sigglekow,[10] and Nelson Repenning[11] revive an older interest in how
structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.

Functional structure [ edit ]

A functional organizational structure is a structure that consists of activities such as coordination, supervision and task allocation. The organizational structure determines how
the organization performs or operates. The term organizational structure refers to how the people in an organization are grouped and to whom they report. One traditional way
of organizing people is by function. Some common functions within an organization include production, marketing, human resources, and accounting.

This organizing of specialization leads to operational efficiency, where employees become specialists within their own realm of expertise. On the other hand, the most typical
problem with a functional organizational structure is that communication within the company can be rather rigid, making the organization slow and inflexible. Therefore, lateral
communication between functions becomes very important, so that information is disseminated not only vertically, but also horizontally within the organization. Communication
in organizations with functional organizational structures can be rigid because of the standardized ways of operation and the high degree of formalization.

As a whole, a functional organization is best suited as a producer of standardized goods and services at large volume and low cost. Coordination and specialization of tasks
are centralized in a functional structure, which makes producing a limited number of products or services efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiency can further be realized
as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and distributed quickly and at low cost.[12] For instance, a small business could make
components used in production of its products instead of buying them.

Even though functional units often perform with a high level of efficiency, their level of cooperation with each other is sometimes compromised. Such groups may have difficulty
working well with each other as they may be territorial and unwilling to cooperate. The occurrence of infighting among units may cause delays, reduced commitment due to
competing interests, and wasted time, making projects fall behind schedule. This ultimately can bring down production levels overall, and the company-wide employee
commitment toward meeting organizational goals.

Divisional structure [ edit ]

The divisional structure or product structure consists of self-contained divisions. A division is a collection of functions which produce a product. It also utilizes a plan to compete
and operate as a separate business or profit center. According to Zainbooks.com, divisional structure in America is seen as the second most common structure for organization
today.[citation needed]

Employees who are responsible for certain market services or types of products are placed in divisional structure in order to increase their flexibility. Examples of divisions
include regional (a U.S Division and an EU division), consumer type (a division for companies and one for households), and product type (a division for trucks, another for
SUVS, and another for cars). The divisions may also have their own departments such as marketing, sales, and engineering.

The advantage of divisional structure is that it uses delegated authority so the performance can be directly measured with each group. This results in managers performing
better and high employee morale.[citation needed] Another advantage of using divisional structure is that it is more efficient in coordinating work between different divisions, and
there is more flexibility to respond when there is a change in the market. Also, a company will have a simpler process if they need to change the size of the business by either
adding or removing divisions. When divisional structure is utilized more specialization can occur within the groups. When divisional structure is organized by product, the
customer has their own advantages especially when only a few services or products are offered which differ greatly. When using divisional structures that are organized by
either markets or geographic areas they generally have similar function and are located in different regions or markets. This allows business decisions and activities
coordinated locally.

The disadvantages of the divisional structure is that it can support unhealthy rivalries among divisions. This type of structure may increase costs by requiring more qualified
managers for each division. Also, there is usually an over-emphasis on divisional more than organizational goals which results in duplication of resources and efforts like staff
services, facilities, and personnel.

Matrix structure [ edit ]

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline
citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this
template message)

The matrix structure groups employees by both function and product simultaneously. A matrix organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in order to
take advantage of the strengths, as well as make up for the weaknesses, of functional and decentralized forms. An example would be a company that produces two products,
"product a" and "product b". Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within the company as follows: "product a" sales department, "product a"
customer service department, "product a" accounting, "product b" sales department, "product b" customer service department, "product b" accounting department.

Weak/functional matrix: A project manager with only limited authority is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the project. The functional managers maintain
control over their resources and project areas.
Balanced/functional matrix: A project manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project manager and the functional managers. It
brings the best aspects of functional and projectized organizations. However, this is the most difficult system to maintain as the sharing of power is a delicate proposition.
Strong/project matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and assign resources as needed.

There are advantages and disadvantages of the matrix structure. Some of the disadvantages include tendencies towards anarchy, power struggles and 'sinking' to group and
division levels.[13] Matrices increase the complexity of the chain of command, which can present problems because of the differentiation between functional managers and
project managers. This, in turn, can be confusing for employees to understand who is next in the chain of command. An additional disadvantage of the matrix structure is higher
manager to worker ratio that results in conflicting loyalties of employees. However, the matrix structure also has significant advantages that make it valuable for companies to
use. The matrix structure may improve upon the "silo" critique of functional management in that it aims to diminish the vertical structure of functional and create a more
horizontal structure which allows the spread of information across task boundaries to happen much quicker. It aims to allow specialization to increase depth of knowledge and
allows individuals to be chosen according to project needs.

Organizational circle [ edit ]

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline
citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (October 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this
template message)

The flat structure is common in small companies (entrepreneurial start-ups, university spin offs). As companies grow they tend to become more complex and hierarchical, which
leads to an expanded structure, with more levels and departments.

However, in rare cases, such as the examples of Valve Corporation, GitHub, Inc. and 37signals, the organization remains very flat as it grows, eschewing middle managers.[14]
(However, GitHub subsequently introduced middle managers.) All of the aforementioned organizations operate in the field of technology, which may be significant, as software
developers are highly skilled professionals, much like lawyers. Senior lawyers also enjoy a relatively high degree of autonomy within a typical law firm, which is typically
structured as a partnership rather than a hierarchical bureaucracy. Some other types of professional organizations are also commonly structured as partnerships, such as
accountancy companies and GP surgeries.

Often, growth would result in bureaucracy, the most prevalent structure in the past. It is still, however, relevant in former Soviet Republics, China, and most governmental
organizations all over the world. Shell Group used to represent the typical bureaucracy: top-heavy and hierarchical. It featured multiple levels of command and duplicate
service companies existing in different regions. All this made Shell apprehensive to market changes,[15] leading to its incapacity to grow and develop further. The failure of this
structure became the main reason for the company restructuring into a matrix.

Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully developed the matrix structure supporting their focused strategy. Its design combines functional and
product based divisions, with employees reporting to two heads.[16]

Some experts also mention the multinational design,[17] common in global companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This structure can be seen as a
complex form of the matrix, as it maintains coordination among products, functions and geographic areas.

With the growth of the internet, and the associated access that gives all levels of an organization to information and communication via digital means, power structures have
begun to align more as a wirearchy, enabling the flow of power and authority to be based not on hierarchical levels, but on information, trust, credibility, and a focus on results.

In general, over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that through the forces of globalization, competition and more demanding customers, the structure of many
companies has become flatter, less hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.[18]

Team [ edit ]

One of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is team and the related concept of team development or team building. In small businesses, the
team structure can define the entire organization.[17] Teams can be both horizontal and vertical.[19] While an organization is constituted as a set of people who synergize
individual competencies to achieve newer dimensions, the quality of organizational structure revolves around the competencies of teams in totality.[20] For example, every one
of the Whole Foods Market stores, the largest natural-foods grocer in the US developing a focused strategy, is an autonomous profit centre composed of an average of 10 self-
managed teams, while team leaders in each store and each region are also a team.[21] Larger bureaucratic organizations can benefit from the flexibility of teams as well. Xerox,
Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that actively use teams to perform tasks.

Network [ edit ]

Another modern structure is network. While business giants risk becoming too clumsy to proact (such as), act and react efficiently,[22] the new network organizations contract
out any business function, that can be done better or more cheaply. In essence, managers in network structures spend most of their time coordinating and controlling external
relations, usually by electronic means. H&M is outsourcing its clothing to a network of 700 suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are based in low-cost Asian countries. Not
owning any factories, H&M can be more flexible than many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with its low-cost strategy.[23] The potential management
opportunities offered by recent advances in complex networks theory have been demonstrated[24] including applications to product design and development,[25] and innovation
problem in markets and industries.[26]

Virtual [ edit ]

Virtual organization is defined as being closely coupled upstream with its suppliers and downstream with its customers such that where one begins and the other ends means
little to those who manage the business processes within the entire organization. A special form of boundaryless organization is virtual. Hedberg, Dahlgren, Hansson, and Olve
(1999) consider the virtual organization as not physically existing as such, but enabled by software to exist.[27] The virtual organization exists within a network of alliances,
using the Internet. This means while the core of the organization can be small but still the company can operate globally be a market leader in its niche. According to Anderson,
because of the unlimited shelf space of the Web, the cost of reaching niche goods is falling dramatically. Although none sell in huge numbers, there are so many niche products
that collectively they make a significant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful.[28]

Hierarchy-community phenotype model [ edit ]

In the 21st century, even though most, if not all, organizations are not of a pure hierarchical structure, many
managers are still blind to the existence of the flat community structure within their organizations.[29]

The business is no longer just a place where people come to work. For most of the employees, the firm confers
on them that sense of belonging and identity –– the firm has become their “village”, their community.[30] The firm
of the 21st century is not just a hierarchy which ensures maximum efficiency and profit; it is also the community
where people belong to and grow together, where their affective and innovative needs are met.[31]

Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) developed the Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational
Structure borrowing from the concept of Phenotype from genetics. "A phenotype refers to the observable
characteristics of an organism. It results from the expression of an organism’s genes and the influence of the
environment. The expression of an organism’s genes is usually determined by pairs of alleles. Alleles are different
forms of a gene. In our model, each employee’s formal, hierarchical participation and informal, community
participation within the organization, as influenced by his or her environment, contributes to the overall observable Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational
Structure
characteristics (phenotype) of the organization. In other words, just as all the pair of alleles within the genetic
material of an organism determines the physical characteristics of the organism, the combined expressions of all
the employees’ formal hierarchical and informal community participation within an organization give rise to the organizational structure. Due to the vast potentially different
combination of the employees’ formal hierarchical and informal community participation, each organization is therefore a unique phenotype along a spectrum between a pure
hierarchy and a pure community (flat) organizational structure."[31]

"The Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organisational Structure views an organisation as having both a hierarchy and a community structure, both equally well
established and occurring extensively throughout the organisation. On the practical level, it utilises the organizational chart to study the hierarchical structure which brings
across individuals’ roles and formal authority within their designated space at the workplace, and social network analysis to map out the community structure within the
organisation, identifying individuals’ informal influences which usually do not respect workplace boundaries and at many times extend beyond the workplace."[4]

History [ edit ]

Organizational structures developed from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical power structures to industrial
structures and today's post-industrial structures.

As pointed out by Lawrence B. Mohr,[32] the early theorists of organizational structure, Taylor, Fayol, and Weber "saw the importance of structure for effectiveness and
efficiency and assumed without the slightest question that whatever structure was needed, people could fashion accordingly. Organizational structure was considered a matter
of choice... When in the 1930s, the rebellion began that came to be known as human relations theory, there was still not a denial of the idea of structure as an artifact, but
rather an advocacy of the creation of a different sort of structure, one in which the needs, knowledge, and opinions of employees might be given greater recognition." However,
a different view arose in the 1960s, suggesting that the organizational structure is "an externally caused phenomenon, an outcome rather than an artifact."[33]

In the 21st century, organizational theorists such as Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) are once again proposing that organizational structure development is very much
dependent on the expression of the strategies and behavior of the management and the workers as constrained by the power distribution between them, and influenced by
their environment and the outcome.[31]

Military Command and Control [ edit ]

There are correspondences between Mintzberg's organizational archetypes and various approaches to military Command and Control (C2). Mintzberg's Machine Bureaucracy
represents a highly centralized approach to C2, with a narrow allocation of decision rights, restricted patterns of interaction among organization members, and a restricted flow
of information. Mintzberg's Adhocracy, on the other hand, represents a more networked and less centralized approach to C2, with more individual initiative and self-
synchronization. It involves a broader allocation of decision rights, broader interaction patterns, and broader information distribution. Mintzberg's other organization types (for
example, the Professional Bureaucracy and the Simple Structure) fall in between these two.[34]

Operational and informal [ edit ]

See also: Informal organization and Formal organization

The set organizational structure may not coincide with facts, evolving in operational action. Such divergence decreases performance, when growing as a wrong organizational
structure may hamper cooperation and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of resources and budgets.

Organizational structures should be adaptive to process requirements, aiming to optimize the ratio of effort and input to output.

Configurations of organizational structure according to Mintzberg [ edit ]

Parts of organization [ edit ]

Henry Mintzberg considers five main parts of organization:[35]

Strategic apex (leaders of organization)

Middle line (managers of lower level)
Operating core (workers of lowest level, directly producing something or providing services)
Technostructure (analysts)
Support staff (helping other members of organisation to perform their function)

An additional element is organisational ideology.[35]

Mechanisms of coordination [ edit ] Diagram, proposed by Henry

Mintzberg, showing the main parts of
Mintzberg considers six main mechanisms of coordination of work:[35] organisation, including technostructure

Mutual adjustment (without formal, standardized mechanisms)

Direct supervision (when one person, leader of organization, gives direct orders to others)
Standardization of work processes (based on the documents that regulate work and are produced by technostructure)
Standardization of outputs (only the results of work are regulated)
Standardization of skills (based on preparing the specialists outside the organization)
Standardization of norms (based on organisation's values, ideology)

Configurations of organizations [ edit ]

Mintzberg considers seven main configurations of organizational structure:[35]

1. Entrepreneurial organization (strategic apex, direct supervision dominate)

2. Machine organization (technostructure, standardization of work processes dominate)
3. Professional organization (operating core, standardization of skills dominate)
4. Diversified organization (middle level, standardization of outputs dominate)
5. Innovative organization (support staff, mutual adjustment dominate)
6. Missionary organization (ideology, standardization of norms dominate)
7. Political organization (no part or mechanism of coordination dominates)

Entrepreneurial organisation or Simple structure has simple, informal structure.[36] Its leader coordinates the work using direct supervision.[36] There is no technostructure, little
support staff.[37] Such structure is usually found in organizations with environment that is simple (so that one man could have significant influence), but changing (so that
flexibility of one man would give a significant advantage over the bureaucratic structures).[36]

Machine organisation or Machine bureaucracy has formal rules regulating the work, developed technostructure and middle line, is centralised, hierarchical.[36] Such structure is
common when the work is simple and repetitive.[36] Organizations also tend to achieve such structure when they are strongly controlled from outside.[36] Also, such structure is
common for organizations that perform work that is related to some sort of control (for example, prisons, police), or organizations with special safety requirements (for example,
fire departments, airlines).[36]

Professional configuration or Professional bureaucracy mostly coordinates the work of members of operating core, professionals, through their training (for example, in
university).[36] Operating core in such organisation is large, middle line insignificant, as the professionals perform complex work and have significant autonomy.[36]
Technostructure is also insignificant.[37] Support staff, helping the professionals to do their job, is numerous.[36] Professionals participate in administrative work, thus there are
many committees.[36] Such structure is common for universities, hospitals, law firms.[36]

Diversified Configuration or Divisionalized form consists of several parts having high autonomy.[36] Such structure is common for old, large organizations.[36]

Innovative Configuration or Adhocracy gathers the specialists of different fields into teams for specific tasks.[36] Such organizations are common when environment is complex
and dynamic.[36] Mintzberg considers two types of such organization: operating adhocracy and administrative adhocracy.[36] Operating adhocracy solves innovative problems
for its clients.[36] Examples of such organisation can be advertising agency or firm that develops the prototypes of products.[36] Administrative adhocracy has teams solving
problems for the organization itself.[36] As an example of such organization Mintzberg gives NASA when it worked on Apollo program.[36]

Missionary organisation coordinates the work through organisational ideology.[36] Formal rules in such organization are not numerous.[36] Such organizations are decentralized,
the differences between levels are not significant.[36]

Political configuration happens when the power is mostly used through workplace politics.[36]

Bibliography [ edit ]

Lawrence B. Mohr, Explaining Organizational Behavior. The Limits and Possibilities of Theory and Research., Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982.

See also [ edit ]

Corporate governance Organizational culture

Corporation Organization development
Industrial and organizational psychology Organizational psychology
Dynamic governance Parent company
Management Value network
Organizational architecture Viable system theory
Organizational behavior Organizational Cybernetics

References [ edit ]

1. ^ Pugh, D. S., ed. (1990).Organization Theory: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: 20. ^ Thareja P. (2007). A Total Quality Organisation thru'People Each One is Capable.
Penguin. Available at: http://www.foundry-planet.com
2. ^ a b Jacobides., M. G. (2007). The inherent limits of organizational structure and the 21. ^ Fishman C. (1996). Whole Foods Is All Teams. Available at:
unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-war. Organization Science, 18, 3, 455- https://www.fastcompany.com/26671/whole-foods-all-teams
477. 22. ^ Gummesson, E. (2002). Total Marketing Control. Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 266.
3. ^ Feldman, P.; Miller, D. (1986-01-01). "Entity Model Clustering: Structuring A Data 23. ^ Capell, K. H&M Defies Retail Gloom. Available at:
Model By Abstraction" . The Computer Journal. 29 (4): 348–360. http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2008/gb2008093_150758.htm
doi:10.1093/comjnl/29.4.348 . ISSN 0010-4620 . (accessed 20/10/08).
4. ^ a b Lim, M. (2017). Examining the literature on organizational structure and success. 24. ^ Amaral, L.A.N. and B. Uzzi. (2007) Complex Systems—A New Paradigm for the
College Mirror, 43, 1, 16-18. http://www.cfps.org.sg/publications/the-college- Integrative Study of Management, Physical, and Technological Systems. Management
mirror/article/1098 Science, 53, 7: 1033–1035.
5. ^ Grandjean, Martin (2017). "Analisi e visualizzazioni delle reti in storia. L'esempio della 25. ^ Braha, D. and Y. Bar-Yam. (2007) The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product
cooperazione intellettuale della Società delle Nazioni" . Memoria e Ricerca (2): 371– Development: Empirical and Analytical Results. Management Science, 53, 7: 1127–1145.
393. doi:10.14647/87204 . See also: French version (PDF) and English summary . 26. ^ Kogut, B., P. Urso, and G. Walker. (2007) Emergent Properties of a New Financial
6. ^ Weber, M. (1948). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated, edited and with Market: American Venture Capital Syndication, 1960–2005. Management Science, 53, 7:
an introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 1181-1198.
7. ^ Burns, T. and G. Stalker. (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. 27. ^ Hedberg, B., G. Dahlgren, J. Hansson, and N.-G. Olve (1999). Virtual Organizations
8. ^ Grey C., Garsten C., 2001, Trust, Control and Post-Bureaucracy, Sage Publishing) and Beyond: Discover Imaginary Systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
9. ^ a b Heckscher C. (Editor), Donnellon A. (Editor), 1994, The Post-Bureaucratic 28. ^ Anderson, C. (2007). The Long Tail. Random House Business Books, pp. 23, 53.
Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change, Sage Publications 29. ^ Butler Jr., J.K. (1986). A global view of informal organization. Academy of Management
10. ^ Nicolaj Sigglekow and Jan W. Rivkin, October 2003, Speed, Search and the Failure of Journal, 51, 3, 39-43.
Simple Contingency, No. 04-019 30. ^ Stacey, M. (1974). The myth of community studies. C. Bell, H. Newby, (Editors), The
11. ^ Repenning, N. (2002). A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics Sociology of Community: A Selection of Readings. London, Frank Cass, 13-26.
of Innovation Implementation. Organization Science, 13, 2: 109-127. 31. ^ a b c Lim, M., G. Griffiths, and S. Sambrook. (2010). Organizational structure for the
12. ^ Raymond E. Miles, Charles C. Snow, Causes of Failure in Network Organizations, twenty-first century. Presented the annual meeting of The Institute for Operations
California Management Review, Summer 1992 Research and The Management Sciences, Austin. https://communities-
13. ^ Davis, Stanley M.; Lawrence, Paul R. (1978). "Problems of Matrix Organizations" . innovation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Organizational-Structure-for-the-Twenty-
Harvard Business Review. Vol. 56 no. 3. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business first-Century-220619i.pdf
School (published 1 May 1978). pp. 131–142. ISSN 0017-8012 . Archived from the 32. ^ Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
original on 9 March 2019. Retrieved 9 March 2019. Publishers.
14. ^ Fried, Jason (April 2011). "Why I Run a Flat Company" . Inc. Retrieved 1 Sep 2013. 33. ^ Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
15. ^ Grant, R.M. (2008). History of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. Available at: Publishers.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/docs/07Shell.pdf (accessed 20/10/08) 34. ^ Vassiliou, Marius, David S. Alberts, and Jonathan R. Agre (2015). "C2 Re-Envisioned:
16. ^ (Starbucks.com (2008). Starbucks Coffee International. Available at: "Archived the Future of the Enterprise." CRC Press; New York; pp. 93-96.
copy" . Archived from the original on 2008-11-13. Retrieved 2008-11-12. (accessed 35. ^ a b c d Robertas Jucevičius "Strateginis organizacijų vystymas", „Pasaulio lietuvių
20/10/08)) kultūros, mokslo ir švietimo centras“, 1998, ISBN 9986-418-07-0, p. 81-92
17. ^ a b Robbins, S.F., Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior. 12th edition. Pearson 36. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y Victoria Lemieux "Applying Mintzberg's
Education Inc., p. 551-557. Theories on Organizational Configuration to Archival Appraisal" // "Archivaria", 1998, 46,
18. ^ Gratton, L. (2004). The Democratic Enterprise, Financial Times Prentice Hall, pp. xii- p. 32-85 [1]
xiv. 37. ^ a b Fred C. Lunenburg „Organizational Structure: Mintzberg’s Framework“ //
19. ^ Thareja P(2008), "Total Quality Organization Thru’ People,(Part 16), Each one is „International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity“, 2012, Volume 14,
Capable", FOUNDRY, Vol. XX, No. 4, July/Aug 2008 Number 1

· · Aspects of organizations [hide]

Architecture · Behavior · Blame · Burnout · Capital · Cells · Chart · Citizenship behavior · Climate · Commitment · Communication · Complexity · Conflict · Culture · Design · Development ·
Diagnostics · Dissent · Ecology · Effectiveness · Engineering · Ethics · Field · Fit in or fuck off · Hierarchy · Identification · Intelligence · Justice · Kick the cat · Kiss up kick down · Learning ·
Life cycle · Machiavellianism · Mentorship · Narcissism · Network analysis · Ombudsman · Onboarding · Patterns · Perceived support · Performance · Politics · Proactivity · Psychology ·
Psychopathy · Resilience · Retaliatory behavior · Safety · Space · Storytelling · Structure · Suggestion box

See also templates: Aspects of corporations · Aspects of jobs · Aspects of occupations · Aspects of workplaces

Categories: Organizational structure

This page was last edited on 30 October 2019, at 11:28 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Statistics Cookie statement Mobile view