Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Adhocracies

Adhocracies are organizational configurations that break away from the traditional ways of bureaucracy by not holding formal rules or regulations. They are usually void of hierarchies and have no standardized or formally prescribed procedures for dealing with routine problems. Their major feature is their flexibility and responsiveness in dealing with all sorts of situations quickly and efficiently, particularly in dynamic and complex environments.

Conceptual Overview

Adhocracy is normally used as the opposite of bureaucracy. Adhocracies are managed from the bottom-up, while bureaucracies are seen as hierarchical chains of commands and rules. The modern concept of bureaucracy was developed by Max Weber. His definition of a bureaucratic structure arises from the idea of the legal-rational authority and describes it as the product of a rational construction based on the predictability of formally designated organizational ends. A major reason behind the success of bureaucracies is that their highly formalized mechanism of functioning is able to standardize practices, allowing all members to know exactly what duties are expected of them. However, their ability to maintain control and efficiency depends on the stability of the socioeconomic environment and the absence of changes in the goals toward which they are rigidly oriented. When things change, organizations must innovate, and this means breaking away from established and standardized forms for coordination.

Robert Merton pointed out that in bureaucratic organizations there is a tendency for the rules to become more important than the ends they were designed to serve, resulting in goal displacement and loss of organizational effectiveness. Following these critiques and bearing in mind the need to redesign organizations to be flexible in dealing with ever-changing demands and goals, the concept of adhocracy was developed and included in new taxonomical models. According to Henry Minztberg, for example, adhocracy is one of the four types of organizational forms determined by different combinations of complexity and change. Due to this environmental variety they are adapted to, each of the four organizational forms in Mintzberg's taxonomy has different influential subunits and depends on fundamentally different mechanisms for coordination. While the machine bureaucracy depends primarily on the standardization of its operating work processes for coordination, and its technostructure emerges as the key part of the organization, adhocracy is a highly organic structure with little formalization of behavior, and relies mainly on the informal mutual adjustment of ad-hoc teams of professionals. Mintzberg also makes a distinction between two basic forms of adhocracy. The operating adhocracy innovates and solves problems directly on behalf of its clients. Its multidisciplinary teams of experts often work under contract and its administrative and operating work tend to blend into a single effort, making it hard to separate the planning and design of the work from its execution. On the other hand, the administrative adhocracy also functions with project teams but not to serve its clients but to serve itself.

Critical Commentary and Future Directions

The benefits of any form of adhocracy lie in its horizontal managerial structure and its ability to be adaptive and creative, allowing for collaboration from varied specialists with very few rules. In fact, these types of structural systems can be found at work in high-risk organizations, virtual enterprises, or newly developing industries, as well as in groups that plan on only existing for short periods. While bureaucracy is mechanical in how it approaches each problem, systematically developing answers through standardization, adhocracy is premised on innovation. Adhocracy lacks the advantages of standardized work and has conflict and stress as its major disadvantages, but when faced with changes within the environment, it will be more able to cope and adapt quickly, while bureaucracy will need more time in order to change its rules. Many larger organizations tend to choose a bureaucratic system because it achieves set objectives well in simple and stable environments. On the other hand, organizations that are beginning or only intend to complete certain tasks tend to opt for an adhocratic configuration that allows them enough freedom to discover their own markets and methods.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution