8/20/2019 Morgan, 1989
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/morgan-1989 1/4
.
-
From Bureaucracies
to Networks:
The mergence
f ew
Organizational orms
Most
of
us are familiar with the bureaucratic
organization
that
is
specified
in aImost
every
detail and ron in a tightly controUed way by
the executive
al
th e
topo Many government
organizations
with
their rigid departmental
divisions and
cIearIy
delUled roles
and ndes,
mobilized through a
hierarchical
chain of
com
mand, provide obvious examples.
While this
kind
of organization once domí
nated many
aspects of society,
most
bureauc
racies are in
th e
process of be ing reshaped
along
with the chang ing dernands and
chal
lenges of
th e
worId around
them. SometimeS
he
changes are quite marginal.Many organiza
lioos
ofien
resist
fundamental
change-because
people,
fo r one reason 01
anothel ,
wish
to
cIing
to a hierarchicaI modeL But in some cases,
significant traosformalions in
organizalion
can
be achieved.
TIte
foUowing pages explore
sorne
of
these
changes,
and how the bureaucratic
a
proach to
management
is
being
chalIenged a
replaced by
newel
fonos of ol ganization th
are
much
more lilce networks
than hierarchic
structures.
Conceptually,
th e range of
organiz
liona
fonos to be
diSaJssed can be
represente
by
a
continuum ranging from the r igid b
reaucracy
on th e one hand (madel to h
looseIy coupled networlc, or organic forro o
organization
(¡nade GI on the
other.
The aim
of th e discussion is twofold:
(a l
to
illUStrate
how
a bureaucracy
can,
i
principIe, begin
to transform itself over tim
from
one fonn of organization into anothe
butprobabIy
not
t he way from
model
1
t
modeIs 5 and 6);
and
b to contrast th e principIes
that
underpi
..organizations
at different ends
of
the
con
tinuwn.
EXHIBIT 27.1
Modell
he rigidly
organized
bureaucracy
Model Z
The
bureauc-
racy ron
by
a
senior exe u-
tives'
group
Model3
TIte bureauc-
racy
thal
has
created
cross
departmental
teams and
task
rorces
Mooel4
The
matrix
organization
Model
S
The
project-
based
organi-
ut o
Model.6
TIte
looscly
coupled
oro
g ni
network
•
MECHAN 5l C BUREAUCRATIC
0 l?niz ed
(Of
Stab ity
64
ORCM1C NE1WORK
Orpnized r -
flexibilily and
cNnte
8/20/2019 Morgan, 1989
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/morgan-1989 2/4
PrOm ureaucracies
o
Networks
The purpose of the
discussion·is to
provide
a series
of
images and
general
principIes against
wlúch you can
identify th e
organizations with
wlúchyou are
familiar. visual i1Justration
of
each model is presented
in
Exluoit 27.2.
M o d e l l
n ü s
is Weber s cJassical bureaucraey de
scn1Jed
in th e
opening
paragraph
(and
in
Re
source
22 t
represen15
th e
traditíonal organi
zational pyramid under
th e
atrictcontrol of
th e
chief executíve.
The organization
has bied to
codify
aH ünportant operationalprincipIeS,
and
is ru n in accordance
with
those principies:
Meetíngs are viewed
as
a
waste of
time, and
ar e
rareIy nec;es 'Y, because
aImost
every con
tingeney
is well
understood: TIJe organization
is operating
in
an
uItrastable
environment.
M o d e l 2
nJis organizatlon is Cuufing
that th e
enviran
ment
is generating novel
problems, issues, and
ronceros
on an ongoing basis.
t
is ÚDpossible
lo
codify aH appropriate responses. TIJe clüef
executive
has thus decided
to
create
a manage
ment
team.-
comprising
himse1f
and
the
heads
principal departmen15,
wlúch
mee15
on
a
weekly basis.
üS
team
malees
aU
poliey deci
.sions,
an d
settles the problems that
cannot
be
handled
through
th e
organization's normal
routú ies. Each depa¡:tment
head
exercises
cJearly deCmed
authority
in relatian
to bis
o r
her area oC
infIuence. Mariagerial atyles
vary
from department
to department. being sbaped
by th e
personalityof
the department head and
the
kind of
wk beingperformed. Sorne depart
men15 are highly authoritarian;
others
are
more participative.
Mo d e l3
This organization ha s Cound that th e senior
management team cannot handle
aU
th e issues
that require
an interdepartmental perspective.
aild
haS
created
a number
project
teams an d
task
forces involving staff
at
lower
levels oC
th e
organization.
The departmental structure an d
sense organizatíonallúerarcl1y, however, ar e
ve Y
strong. The members th e
teams
an d
task
forces
tend
t o s ee
their
primary
loyalty
as
being to
their
department
head
rather
than to
the team
to
wlúch
they belong. They realize
that promotían is
Jargelya departmentalaffair.
T he y s it
in
team
meetings
as
representatives
of
their departlÍlent.
T he y ten d
to give
th e
-departmenta1line on
issues,
an d
report back
to
their departmenta1 head on what
happens.
W h en r ea l problems
arise.
they are thus
usu
aUy -delegated upward
fo r
resolution by th e
senior·
management team. Team leaders fee
that
they bave
relatively little
power, and
Im d
it difficult lo develop comrnitmentan d momen
tu m in relation
to
th e
activities
t ha t t he y r e
charged with managing. Th e
organization
oo s
as
i it is moving
toward
a matr ix
o r
project
team atructure, but in
reality
it operates
Iike
a looseIy structured bureaucratic organizanon
where information
is
passed
u p t he lúerarchy,
and decisions
down.
M o d e 1 4
This o rga ni za ti on h as d ec id ed t o o rg an iz e
itself
in
a
matrix
form.
5
apecial
character
res15 in
the
fact
that it has
decided to give
more
o r lesa equa
priority to
functional departJUen15
such
as
Cmanee, administration,
marlceting
sales,
production an d
R&D,
and to
various
business o r product areas. Thus people
work
ing in the various product
o r
business teams
th at c ut across the functional
areas have to
work with
two
perspectives in
núnd:
functiQ.nal
a nd e nd product. nJis dual focus, under ideal
conditions, aUows
th e
various operating teams
to
combine functional skills
and resources with
a n
.Jlrientation
driven
by
th e
key
tasks
and
chaUenges
from the organization s enviran
ment-such as
t ho se r el at in g t o
the need to
¡ne-tune p ro du ct s f or specillc
market
seg
men15
o r th e
needs
specificgeograplúc areas.
8/20/2019 Morgan, 1989
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/morgan-1989 3/4
.
EXHIBIT 27.2 Schematic iIIustrations of the six models
Model 1: The Rigid Bureaucracy
Model 3: The Bureaucracy with
Project Teams and Task Forces.
Model The Project Organization
Model
2:
The Bure¡¡uaacy
wit
a senior
management team.
Model 4: The
trix
Organization
Model 6: The Loosely <Xlupled Organic Netw
8/20/2019 Morgan, 1989
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/morgan-1989 4/4
Prom
Durcaucracies
o
Networks
Modele;
This
organizationhas decided
to
tackIe most
of its core activities through project teams. No-
tionaIly. there may be functionaI
departments
bu t fhey onIy play a supporting r o ~ ~ y
speeiaIistbelong
to
teams.
and
make thelI
contnbutions through their team. The orgaru
zation recognizes
that
its future lies in the
dynamism
and
innovativeness
~
t.eams.
and tries to give them a free rem wtthm
the
parameters
and
vaIues that senior managers
have used te def me the strategic direction of
the organization. The OI ganization s
much
more
like a network
of
interaction
than
a
bureaucratic
structure.
The teams
are
power
fuI. exciting.
and
dynamic entities. Coordina
tion
is
infonnaL
There is
frequent cross
fertilization
of
ideas.
and
a
regular
exchange
of
information. especiaUy
between
team
leaders
and the senior
management group.
Much effort is devoted to creating
shared
ap
preciations
and
understandings of the nature
and identityo
the
organization
and
its mission.
bu t always within a context
that
encourages a
l e r n i n g ~ r i e n t e d approach. The organization
is
constantIy tryingto find
and
create the new
initiatives. ideas. systems.
and
processes that
will
contnbute to its
SUCCe5S.
Modela
This organization has decided to become. and
stay. a loosely coupled network.
Rather
than
employ Iarge numbers ofpeople. it has decided
to operate in a subcontracting mode.
It
has a
smaD
rore
staff
who ~ t a strategicdirection
and
provide
the
operational
support
necessary
to sustain the network. butcit contracts other
individuala
and
organizations to
perform
key .
operational activities. Its network
at
any given
time operationalizes the ideas tha t the cen
tral group
wishes
to
develop_
For
example.
the
organization may
be
in the faslúon industry.
t has created a name and image-Hit s
Iabel
but contracts
ou t
market surveys. product
design. production distnbution. and so on. In
the public eye.
the firm has
a c e r identity_ But
in reality. it is a network
of
f I IDS held
together
by
the
product of the day.
It
changes from
month
to
month as different ideasand
products
come
on
line.
and
as
the core
organization ex
periments
with
different partners_
The
f I m
is
reaUya systemof f ums-an open-ended system
of
ideas
and
activities.
rather than
an
entity
with
a
c ear
structure
and
defmable boundaI) .
Modela 1 through 6
ar e
really different
species of organizations.
f I m begirnúng as
modell
mayover
time evolve into model
Z 3.
perbaps
even
4.
And
i
it is prepared to engage
in
a major Hrevolution, it may develop the
features
of
modela
5
and
_
But
in
reality.
the
transformation process f rom one end of the
continuwn
to the
other is
extremely difficult
to make.
and the required
change
ismore
than
structural-it
is
cultural and
political
as
well.
TIte
culture
and
politics
of
many
organizations
constrain th e degree of change
and
transfor
mation in wlúch they can successfully engage.
even though . such change may be highIy
desirable
for meeting the challenges and
demands of th e wider enviromnent.
Top Related