Mintzberg - INTEGRATED THEORIES of School Organization
5.
INTEGRATED THEORIES
In recent years a number of new 'organizational
theories' have appeared on the scene. The following scientists, among others,
have rendered significant contributions to the study of organizations: Henry
Mintzberg from McGill University in Canada, Peter M. Senge from MIT's Sloan
School of Management in the United States, and Peter Gomez from Hochschule St
Gallen in Switzerland (cf Mintzberg 1991, Senge 1990, Gomez and Zimmermann
1992).
While Senge has come up with one specific systematic
perspective of organizations and developed his theory of 'the learning
organization', both Mintzberg and Gomez take a broader approach. The fact that
I still choose to present Senge in this context (and not under the humanistic
perspective) is because his thinking goes deeper and encompasses more than one
specific perspective.
Mintzberg
Mintzberg's point of departure is that all
organizations are influenced by both internal and external forces, and that a
balance between them is essential for achieving effectiveness in any given
situation. There is no one way of achieving this effectiveness, but many.
But Mintzberg goes beyond the 'contingency
theoreticians' (see above), who virtually claim that 'it all depends' on the
situation in each case, without stating clearly what effect various remedies
might have in given situations. Mintzberg attempts to clarify which strategies
are best for developing an organization, what makes an organization outstanding
when it counts, and what it takes to maintain and perpetuate an organization
that is already functioning well.
In Mintzberg's first works, the concept
of'configuration' played an important role. He sought to group organizations
according to specific patterns, each 'form' being effective for its particular
purpose. Later, however, he discovered that a number of very effective
organizations did not fit into these patterns of his. Today he prefers working
with concepts such as 'forces' and 'forms'.
He feels that most of what goes on in organizations
can be understood as an interaction between seven different forces (see Figure
2.2).
Figure
2.2 Mintzberg: A system of forces in an organization
1. Leadership or direction: Gives us an indication
of where an organization as a whole is headed. Without such a 'strategic
vision', it is difficult to get every part of an organization to move in
tandem.
2. Efficiency: Seeks to optimize the relationship
between cost and results. All organizations, apart from the most shielded ones,
have to be concerned about their productivity, which often leads to cutbacks.
3. Proficiency: Involves the performance of tasks
with a high level of knowledge and skills. Without academic expertise, most
organizations would not survive.
4. Concentration: Certain parts of an organization
concentrate on serving specific markets. Without this kind of specialization it
would be difficult to manage complex organizations.
5. Innovation: Makes it possible for an organization
to discover and develop new methods, services and products for its customers
and for itself.
6. Co-operation: Seeks to find and utilize a common
ideology for the purpose of moving together. By Ideology', Mintzberg means more
than an organization's culture in the traditional sense. His use of the term
includes such concepts as norms, traditions, conviction and values. For
Mintzberg, these factors are valuable energy, and serve as 'glue' in the
organization.
7. Competition: As opposed to co-operation,
organizations are also up against competition - or what Mintzberg calls
'polities': and 'each to his own' attitude, the fact that competing interests
are vying for power, often by means of unacceptable or illegitimate attitudes
and behaviour.
Mintzberg's theory states that all these seven
forces are potentially active in every organization. If one of these forces is
allowed to predominate, in time a unified form will take shape, which he
describes as a configuration. If an organization develops in a lopsided fashion
according to one particular pattern, this will have the effect of repressing other vital forces in that organization.
The danger is lopsided dominance and what Mintzberg chooses to call
contamination.
Where no single force predominates, organizations
will function as a combination of forces that are in equilibrium. Such a
pattern can easily lead to division. Both contamination and division call for
management that can successfully cope with disparities. Then what Mintzberg
calls 'the catalytic forces', co-operation and competition, play an important
role. However, these are contrasting forces, and in an effective organization
these must be in balance. Regardless of the form (or 'configuration'), the
balancing offerees remains the basic issue.
Configuration
By a given 'form', Mintzberg means an organization
that is consistent and integrated. This is an organization in which everything
'fits together', as it were. There is no single form that is effective for
every purpose in all organizations. There are a number of forms, each with
their own special features:
1. The entrepreneurial form: Appears when
'management and direction' predominate in an organization, usually when a
manager plays a decisive and dominant role. This often happens in the start-up
phase, when a strong vision and a strong leader are often essential before an
organization can really start moving.
2. The machine form: Appears when the demand for
efficiency and productivity is important. This form is typical of large
manufacturing or service companies, and for organizations with a strong need
for control.
3. The professional form: Usually develops when
proficiency and academic quality are the predominant forces - as, for example,
in hospitals and high-tech companies. The tendency is to extend the existing
base of knowledge and methods, instead of developing new ones. Established,
high-skill procedures predominate and make it possible for individual
professionals to enjoy a considerable measure of freedom with respect to their
colleagues.
4. The 'Adhocracy': Created in response to the need
for innovation. In this form, as well, we have a team of professionals, but
because they are underpressure to constantly be creating something new, they
usually work in teams on a cross-platform, interdisciplinary basis. Something
new is always being created - either in-house or in close co-operation with
customers.
5. The 'diversified' form: Present when the need for
concentrating on specific products and services becomes so pressing that these
must be developed and handled separately. Such organizations are characterized
first by a significant degree of delegating, and second by 'divisionalism'.
Each department is given a large measure of autonomy, governed by norms and
guidelines laid down by a small, centralized staff.
Mintzberg also regards 'ideology' and 'polities' as
forces which, in certain cases, can dominate an organizational form. In this
connection he mentions the Israeli kibbutzes as an example of a type of form
that is ideology-based.
None of these forms exist in a 'pure' state; there
are, however, a number of examples of organizations that share features with a
certain form. Mintzberg compares having a form with having a personality.
Without a 'form', any organization will experience a crisis of identity. The
fact that an organization has a certain form is effective as long as the
situation is static; but as soon as dynamic changes begin to take place, an
established form will inevitably become ineffective - it is just a question of
time.
When a specific form predominates to the exclusion
or detriment of other forces, or when an organization does not react adequately
to external changes, the seeds of self-destruction are sown. A 'machine
organization' might be unable to renew itself because innovative forces have
been consistently quelled.
Professionals can wind up dominating things without
taking sufficient account of the issue of productivity - and do so to such an
extent that their organization ultimately strangles to death. An entrepreneur
can wind up exploiting his own organization to go on an ego trip. A
divisionalized organization in which common values play a minor role easily
breaks apart. Likewise, an ad hoc organization that is incapable of exploiting
the potential for innovation (before it develops something new) will not be
able to survive.
An organization cannot, in other words, be effective
in a 'pure' form unless it is kept in check by other forces in the organization
(Mintzberg calls this 'containment').
In those cases where it is possible to have a 'pure'
form, this is just fine; but most organizations, instead, have to cope with
competing forces. Naturally, an orchestra requires a high professional standard
for its players, but it also needs clear-cut, competent leadership. Just as a
lopsidedly 'pure' form can easily destroy the equilibrium of an organization
and eclipse all other forces, organizations that enjoy a combination of strong
forces will often have to resist centrifugal forces that would break up the
organization.
Mintzberg claims that most organizations go through
several transformations during the course of their lifetime. He exemplifies
this and points up the danger of splintering. To manage a divided organization,
or one that works with deep and latent divisive tendencies, is a great (and
highly relevant) management challenge. Mintzberg points out important aspects
of the processes of change that must be taken into account if these periodic
transformations are to succeed.
Traditionally, organizations have tried to tackle
this challenge in one of two ways: by renewed co-operation or increased
competition. In Mintzberg's mental image of an organization (see Figure 2.2),
these two forces have been placed in the middle. They have a tendency, not to
pull an organization toward some extreme form, but rather to put their stamp
upon the organization as a whole. Mintzberg calls these the catalytic forces.
Co-operation is a crucial catalytic force that helps
hold an organization together. Whether a co-operative atmosphere is created by
a charismatic leader or is the fruit of common efforts, organizations with a
highly co-operative culture are able to resolve the structual conflicts
inherent in a lopsided form of organization. Mintzberg points out the
limitations of co-operation. In the first place, it is difficult to develop a
co-operative culture, let alone maintain it once it has been established. Karl
Weick once said: 'A culture is not something an organization has; rather, an
organization is a culture' (quoted from Kiechel 1984). This is why it is so
hard to change organizations.
An ideology of co-operation risks becoming too
inward-looking, morbidly preoccupied with itself, and might (directly or
indirectly) reject internal criticism that seeks to take a critical look at the
company culture. Even though a co-operative culture does make it possible to
renew the organization within established norms, it nevertheless resists
fundamental change.
Competition represents the force that encourages the
individual to pursue his or her own interests (often at the expense of the
common good). In other words, competition encourages an organization to move in
many directions at once, which would ultimately lead to the death of the
organization. However, if an overly assertive ideology has been obstructing
fundamental criticism over a long period of time, increased competition can
help bring about important and necessary changes in an organization.
Thus it is important that these two forces be kept
in equilibrium: co-operation on the one hand, and competition on the other.
Both forces are essential: co-operation helps secondary forces to keep a
dominant force in check, whereas competition tends to promote confrontation.
Mintzberg claims that it is only by striking a happy medium between these two
forces that an organization can develop and survive in a dynamic world.
Organizations need a sense of direction, true; but they also need a balance.
Mintzberg has tried to integrate several theories
within the structural and the political perspectives. It is not clear to what
extent the humanistic perspective plays a role in his analysis. The forces
'co-operation' and 'competition' point up the significance of different types
of cultures and can thus be said to represent Mintzberg's version of the humanistic
perspective. The symbolic perspective, not being explicitly represented, can
almost be regarded as an extreme consequence of lopsidedly dominant forces (for
example, 'loosely connected systems' can be said to be a version of Mintzberg's
'diversified form' - which can be a positive thing where the market calls for
concentration, but which can easily lead to a break-up.) In addition, Mintzberg
is very strong on contingency theory.
Another interesting feature of Mintzberg's theory is
that it couples open system theory (organizations are completely independent of
their market), with the need to understand those internal processes in
organizations that are important for determining the type of configuration they
have.
Mintzberg - INTEGRATED THEORIES of School
Organization
School Development - Theories and Strategies [PDF]
$1.00
