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.