IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v26y1980i3p322-341.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design

Author

Listed:
  • Henry Mintzberg

    (McGill University)

Abstract

The elements of organizational structuring---which show a curious tendency to appear in five's---suggest a typology of five basic configurations: Simple Structure, Machine Bureaucracy, Professional Bureaucracy, Divisionalized Form, and Adhocracy. The elements include (1) five basic parts of the organization---the operating core, strategic apex, middle line, technostructure, and support staff; (2) five basic mechanisms of coordination---mutual adjustment, direct supervision, and the standardization of work processes, outputs, and skills; (3) the design parameters---job specialization, behavior formalization, training and indoctrination, unit grouping, unit size, action planning and performance control systems, liaison devices (such as integrating managers, teams, task forces, and matrix structure), vertical decentralization (delegation to line managers), and horizontal decentralization (power sharing by nonmanagers); and (4) the contingency factors---age and size, technical system, environment, and power. Each of the five configurations relies on one of the five coordinating mechanism and tends to favor one of the five parts. In Simple Structure, the key part is the strategic apex, which coordinates by direct supervision; the structure is minimally elaborated and highly centralized; it is associated with simple, dynamic environments and strong leaders, and tends to be found in smaller, younger organizations or those facing severe crises. The Machine Bureaucracy coordinates primarily by the imposition of work standards from the technostructure; jobs are highly specialized and formalized, units functional and very large (at the operating level), power centralized vertically at the strategic apex with limited horizontal decentralization to the technostructure; this structure tends to be found in simple, stable environments, and is often associated with older, larger organizations, sometimes externally controlled, and mass production technical systems. The Professional Bureaucracy relies on the standardization of skills in its operating core for coordination; jobs are highly specialized but minimally formalized, training is extensive and grouping is on a concurrent functional and market basis, with large sized operating units, and decentralization is extensive in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions; this structure is typically found in complex but stable environments, with technical systems that are simple and non-regulating. In the Divisionalized Form, a good deal of power is delegated to market-based units in the middle line (limited vertical decentralization), whose efforts are coordinated by the standardization of outputs, through the extensive use of performance control systems; such structures are typically found in very large, mature organizations, above all operating in diversified markets. Adhocracy coordinates primarily by mutual adjustment among all of its parts, calling especially for the collaboration of its support staff; jobs are specialized, involving extensive training but little formalization, units are small and combine functional and market bases in matrix structures, liaison devices are used extensively, and the structure is decentralized selectively in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions; these structures are found in complex, dynamic environments, and are often associated with highly sophisticated and automated technical systems. In conclusion, it is claimed that the effective Organization will favor some sort of configuration---some type of a logically consistent clustering of its elements---as it searches for harmony in its internal processes and consonance with its environment. But some organizations will inevitably be driven to hybrid structures as they react to contradictory pressures or while they effect a transition from one configuration to another, and here too it is believed that the typology of five can serve as a diagnostic tool in organizational design.

Suggested Citation

  • Henry Mintzberg, 1980. "Structure in 5's: A Synthesis of the Research on Organization Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 322-341, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:26:y:1980:i:3:p:322-341
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.26.3.322
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John W. Boudreau, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Organizational Behavior, Strategy, Performance, and Design in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1463-1476, November.
    2. Lichtenthaler, Ulrich, 2010. "Determinants of proactive and reactive technology licensing: A contingency perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 55-66, February.
    3. Harvey, Jean-François & Cohendet, Patrick & Simon, Laurent & Dubois, Louis-Etienne, 2013. "Another cog in the machine: Designing communities of practice in professional bureaucracies," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 27-40.
    4. repec:eee:tefoso:v:120:y:2017:i:c:p:334-346 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. de Vaujany, François-Xavier, 2007. "La relation pratiques religieuses-pratiques managériales : une approche historique," MPRA Paper 4083, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Battistella, Cinzia, 2014. "The organisation of Corporate Foresight: A multiple case study in the telecommunication industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 60-79.
    7. Raul O. Chao & Stylianos Kavadias & Cheryl Gaimon, 2009. "Revenue Driven Resource Allocation: Funding Authority, Incentives, and New Product Development Portfolio Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(9), pages 1556-1569, September.
    8. repec:pal:jorsoc:v:68:y:2017:i:8:d:10.1057_s41274-017-0245-0 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Mentzas, Gregory N., 1996. "Team coordination in decision support projects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 70-85, February.
    10. Castellacci, Fulvio & Grodal, Stine & Mendonca, Sandro & Wibe, Mona, 2005. "Advances and challenges in innovation studies," MPRA Paper 27519, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Poupeau, François-Mathieu, 2009. "Domestic customers and reform of the gas sector. An organisational sociology perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5385-5392, December.
    12. repec:kap:jbuset:v:148:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10551-016-3102-1 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. repec:spr:binfse:v:59:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s12599-016-0449-x is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Lam, Alice & Lambermont-Ford, Jean-Paul, 2008. "Knowledge Creation and Sharing in Organisational Contexts: A Motivation-Based Perspective," MPRA Paper 11488, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Blome, Wendy Whiting & Steib, Sue D., 2014. "The organizational structure of child welfare: Staff are working hard, but it is hardly working," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 181-188.
    16. Pierre-Jean Benghozi & Alberto Bono, 2001. "Commerce électronique et nouvelle formes d'organisation dans le secteur de la distribution industrielle européenne," Post-Print hal-00262529, HAL.
    17. Richard Baskerville & Jan Pries-Heje, 2010. "Explanatory Design Theory," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 2(5), pages 271-282, October.
    18. Júlio Paulo da Silva Martins, 2008. "Management Control Of Intangibles," Portuguese Journal of Management Studies, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 0(3), pages 307-325.
    19. Jean-Grégoire Bernard & Benoit A. Aubert & Simon Bourdeau & Éric Clément & Caroline Debuissy & Marie-Josée Dumoulin & Marc Laberge & Nathalie de Marcellis-Warin & Ingrid Peignier, 2002. "Le risque : un modèle conceptuel d'intégration," CIRANO Project Reports 2002rp-16, CIRANO.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:26:y:1980:i:3:p:322-341. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.