Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / How to Upload an Organic Sturuture to Word

How to Upload an Organic Sturuture to Word

Manner in which an organization is structured

An organizational construction defines how activities such every bit task allocation, coordination, and supervision are directed toward the accomplishment of organizational aims.[ane]

Organizational construction affects organizational activity and provides the foundation on which standard operating procedures and routines residue. It determines which individuals go to participate in which controlling processes, and thus to what extent their views shape the organization's deportment.[2] Organizational construction tin likewise exist considered as the viewing glass or perspective through which individuals run across their system and its environment.[two]

Organizations are a variant of clustered entities.[three]

An system can be structured in many dissimilar ways, depending on its objectives. The structure of an organization volition determine the modes in which it operates and performs. Organizational structure allows the expressed allotment of responsibilities for unlike functions and processes to different entities such every bit the branch, department, workgroup, and private.[four]

Organizations need to be efficient, flexible, innovative and caring in order to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.[5]

Types [edit]

Pre-bureaucratic structures [edit]

Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks, such as sales. The structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is washed by 1 on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new (entrepreneurial) business concern every bit it enables the founder to control growth and evolution.

They are unremarkably based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority.

Bureaucratic structures [edit]

Weber (1948, p. 214) gives the analogy that "the fully adult bureaucratic mechanism compares with other organizations exactly as does the auto compare with the non-mechanical modes of production. Precision, speed, unambiguity, … strict subordination, reduction of friction and of material and personal costs- these are raised to the optimum indicate in the strictly bureaucratic assistants."[seven] Bureaucratic structures accept a sure degree of standardization. They are meliorate suited for more than complex or larger scale organizations, unremarkably adopting a tall construction. The tension between bureaucratic structures and non-bureaucratic is echoed in Burns and Stalker'due south[viii] distinction betwixt mechanistic and organic structures.

The Weberian characteristics of bureaucracy are:

  • Articulate defined roles and responsibilities
  • A hierarchical structure
  • Respect for merit

Bureaucratic have many levels of management ranging from senior executives to regional managers, all the style to department store managers. Since there are many levels, controlling say-so has to pass through more than layers than flatter organizations. A bureaucratic organization has rigid and tight procedures, policies and constraints. This kind of structure is reluctant to suit or change what they have been doing since the company started. Organizational charts exist for every section, and everyone understands who is in accuse and what their responsibilities are for every situation. Decisions are fabricated through an organized bureaucratic structures, the potency is at the top and data is then flowed from top to bottom. This causes for more than rules and standards for the visitor which operational procedure is watched with close supervision. Some advantages for bureaucratic structures for meridian-level managers are they have a tremendous control over organizational structure decisions. This works all-time for managers who have a command and command manner of managing. Strategic decision-making is also faster because there are fewer people it has to become through to approve.[ citation needed ] A disadvantage in bureaucratic structures is that information technology can discourage creativity and innovation in the organization. This can go far hard for a company to adapt to changing conditions in the marketplace.

Post-bureaucratic [edit]

The term of post bureaucratic is used in two senses in the organizational literature: one generic and one much more specific.[9] In the generic sense the term postal service bureaucratic is often used to draw a range of ideas developed since the 1980s that specifically contrast themselves with Weber'due south platonic type bureaucracy. This may include total quality management, culture management and matrix management, amongst others. None of these nonetheless has left backside the core tenets of Bureaucracy. Hierarchies still exist, authority is still Weber's rational, legal type, and the arrangement is still rule bound. Heckscher, arguing along these lines, describes them as cleaned upwardly bureaucracies,[x] rather than a central shift abroad from bureaucracy. Gideon Kunda, in his archetype study of culture management at 'Tech' argued that 'the essence of bureaucratic control - the formalization, codified and enforcement of rules and regulations - does not change in principle.....information technology shifts focus from organizational structure to the organization's culture'.

Another smaller group of theorists have developed the theory of the Post-Bureaucratic Organisation.,[10] provide a detailed discussion which attempts to describe an system that is fundamentally not bureaucratic. Charles Heckscher has developed an platonic type, the mail-bureaucratic organization, in which decisions are based on dialogue and consensus rather than authority and command, the organization is a network rather than a hierarchy, open at the boundaries (in direct contrast to culture direction); there is an emphasis on meta-decision-making rules rather than decision-making rules. This sort of horizontal controlling by consensus model is often used in housing cooperatives, other cooperatives and when running a not-profit or community organization. Information technology is used in order to encourage participation and assist to empower people who normally experience oppression in groups.

Even so other theorists are developing a resurgence of involvement in complication theory and organizations, and have focused on how elementary structures tin can exist used to engender organizational adaptations. For instance, Miner et al. (2000) studied how elementary structures could be used to generate improvisational outcomes in product development. Their study makes links to simple structures and improviser learning. Other scholars such as Jan Rivkin and Sigglekow,[11] and Nelson Repenning[12] revive an older involvement in how structure and strategy relate in dynamic environments.

Functional construction [edit]

A functional organizational structure is a structure that consists of activities such as coordination, supervision and job allocation. The organizational construction determines how the arrangement performs or operates. The term "organizational structure" refers to how the people in an organization are grouped and to whom they written report. 1 traditional way of organizing people is by function. Some mutual functions inside an system include production, marketing, human resources, and bookkeeping.

This organizing of specialization leads to operational efficiency, where employees get specialists inside their own realm of expertise. On the other hand, the about typical problem with a functional organizational structure is that communication within the company tin can exist rather rigid, making the organization dull and inflexible. Therefore, lateral communication between functions becomes very important, so that data is disseminated non only vertically, only as well horizontally within the organization. Communication in organizations with functional organizational structures can be rigid because of the standardized means of functioning and the high degree of formalization.

As a whole, a functional organization is best suited every bit a producer of standardized goods and services at big book and low price. Coordination and specialization of tasks are centralized in a functional construction, which makes producing a limited number of products or services efficient and predictable. Moreover, efficiency can further be realized as functional organizations integrate their activities vertically so that products are sold and distributed quickly and at low price.[13] For instance, a small business could make components used in product of its products instead of buying them.

Even though functional units ofttimes perform with a high level of efficiency, their level of cooperation with each other is sometimes compromised. Such groups may take difficulty working well with each other as they may be territorial and unwilling to cooperate. The occurrence of infighting among units may cause delays, reduced delivery due to competing interests, and wasted fourth dimension, making projects fall behind schedule. This ultimately can bring downwardly production levels overall, and the company-wide employee commitment toward meeting organizational goals.

Divisional structure [edit]

The bounded structure or production structure consists of self-independent divisions. A sectionalization is a collection of functions which produce a product. Information technology also utilizes a plan to compete and operate equally a split business or profit center. According to Zainbooks.com, bounded structure in the U.s.a. is seen as the 2nd most common structure for organization today.[ citation needed ]

Employees who are responsible for certain marketplace services or types of products are placed in bounded construction in order to increase their flexibility. Examples of divisions include regional (a U.S. Division and an European union division), consumer type (a segmentation for companies and ane for households), and production type (a division for trucks, some other for SUVs, and another for cars). The divisions may also have their own departments such equally marketing, sales, and engineering.

The advantage of bounded structure is that information technology uses delegated authority and so the performance can exist direct measured with each group. This results in managers performing better and high employee morale.[ citation needed ] Another reward of using divisional construction is that it is more efficient in analogous piece of work between unlike divisions, and there is more than flexibility to respond when at that place is a alter in the market. Also, a company will have a simpler procedure if they need to change the size of the business concern by either adding or removing divisions. When divisional construction is utilized more than specialization tin can occur within the groups. When bounded structure is organized by product, the customer has their own advantages especially when just a few services or products are offered which differ greatly. When using divisional structures that are organized by either markets or geographic areas they generally have like functions and are located in dissimilar regions or markets. This allows business decisions and activities coordinated locally.

The disadvantages of the bounded structure is that information technology can support unhealthy rivalries among divisions. This blazon of structure may increase costs by requiring more than qualified managers for each division. Too, there is usually an over-emphasis on divisional more organizational goals which results in duplication of resource and efforts like staff services, facilities, and personnel.

Matrix structure [edit]

The matrix structure groups employees by both function and production simultaneously. A matrix organization frequently uses teams of employees to accomplish work, in social club to take advantage of the strengths, as well as brand up for the weaknesses, of functional and decentralized forms. An instance would exist a company that produces two products, "product A" and "product B". Using the matrix structure, this company would organize functions within the company as follows: "product A" sales department, "product A" customer service department, "product A" bookkeeping, "product B" sales section, "production B" customer service department, "production B" bookkeeping department.

  • Weak/functional matrix: A project managing director with only limited say-so is assigned to oversee the cross- functional aspects of the project. The functional managers maintain command over their resources and project areas.
  • Balanced/functional matrix: A projection manager is assigned to oversee the project. Power is shared equally between the project manager and the functional managers. Information technology brings the all-time aspects of functional and projectized organizations. However, this is the most difficult system to maintain as the sharing of power is a delicate proffer.
  • Strong/project matrix: A project manager is primarily responsible for the project. Functional managers provide technical expertise and assign resources as needed.

There are advantages and disadvantages of the matrix structure. Some of the disadvantages include tendencies towards anarchy, power struggles and 'sinking' to group and division levels.[14] Matrices increase the complexity of the concatenation of control, which can nowadays bug considering of the differentiation between functional managers and projection managers. This, in plough, can be confusing for employees to understand who is adjacent in the chain of command. An additional disadvantage of the matrix construction is higher director to worker ratio that results in conflicting loyalties of employees. However, the matrix structure also has pregnant advantages that make information technology valuable for companies to apply. The matrix structure may improve upon the "silo" critique of functional management in that it aims to diminish the vertical construction of functional and create a more horizontal construction which allows the spread of data across task boundaries to happen much quicker. It aims to allow specialization to increase depth of knowledge and allows individuals to be called according to project needs.

Starbucks is one of the numerous large organizations that successfully adult the matrix structure supporting their focused strategy. Its pattern combines functional and product based divisions, with employees reporting to two heads.[15]

Some experts also mention the multinational design,[16] common in global companies, such as Procter & Gamble, Toyota and Unilever. This structure can be seen as a complex form of the matrix, as it maintains coordination amongst products, functions and geographic areas.

With the growth of the cyberspace, and the associated access that gives all levels of an organization to information and communication via digital means, power structures accept begun to marshal more every bit a wirearchy, enabling the flow of power and potency to be based not on hierarchical levels, just on information, trust, credibility, and a focus on results.

In general, over the last decade, information technology has go increasingly clear that through the forces of globalization, competition and more enervating customers, the construction of many companies has become flatter, less hierarchical, more fluid and even virtual.[17]

Organizational circle [edit]

The apartment structure is common in small-scale companies (entrepreneurial start-ups, university spin offs). As companies grow they tend to go more circuitous and hierarchical, which lead to an expanded structure, with more levels and departments.

Still, in rare cases, such equally the examples of Valve, GitHub, Inc. and 37signals, the system remains very apartment equally it grows, eschewing middle managers.[18] (Still, GitHub subsequently introduced middle managers). All of the aforementioned organizations operate in the field of applied science, which may be significant, as software developers are highly skilled professionals, much like lawyers. Senior lawyers also savour a relatively loftier degree of autonomy within a typical law firm, which is typically structured as a partnership rather than a hierarchical bureaucracy. Another types of professional organizations are also commonly structured as partnerships, such as accountancy companies and GP surgeries.

Often, growth would result in hierarchy, the virtually prevalent structure in the past. It is still, all the same, relevant in sometime Soviet Republics, China, and most governmental organizations all over the world. Shell Group used to represent the typical hierarchy: summit-heavy and hierarchical. It featured multiple levels of control and indistinguishable service companies existing in different regions. All this fabricated Shell apprehensive to market changes,[19] leading to its incapacity to abound and develop further. The failure of this structure became the chief reason for the company restructuring into a matrix.

Squad [edit]

1 of the newest organizational structures developed in the 20th century is squad and the related concept of team development or team edifice. In small businesses, the squad structure can define the unabridged organization.[sixteen] Teams can be both horizontal and vertical.[xx] While an organization is constituted as a set up of people who synergize individual competencies to achieve newer dimensions, the quality of organizational construction revolves around the competencies of teams in totality.[21] For example, every i of the Whole Foods Marketplace stores, the largest natural-foods grocer in the Us developing a focused strategy, is an autonomous profit heart equanimous of an average of ten self-managed teams, while team leaders in each shop and each region are as well a squad.[22] Larger bureaucratic organizations can benefit from the flexibility of teams also. Xerox, Motorola, and DaimlerChrysler are all among the companies that actively apply teams to perform tasks.

Network [edit]

Some other modernistic structure is network. While business giants risk condign too clumsy to proact (such equally), act and react efficiently,[23] the new network organizations contract out whatsoever business organisation office, that tin exist washed better or more cheaply. In essence, managers in network structures spend nigh of their fourth dimension coordinating and controlling external relations, ordinarily by electronic means. H&M is outsourcing its vesture to a network of 700 suppliers, more than two-thirds of which are based in low-cost Asian countries. Not owning any factories, H&M can exist more flexible than many other retailers in lowering its costs, which aligns with its low-cost strategy.[24] The potential management opportunities offered by recent advances in complex networks theory take been demonstrated[25] including applications to production pattern and evolution,[26] and innovation problem in markets and industries.[27]

Virtual [edit]

Virtual organization is defined as being closely coupled upstream with its suppliers and downstream with its customers such that where 1 begins and the other ends means little to those who manage the business processes inside the entire organization. A special form of boundaryless arrangement is virtual. Hedberg, Dahlgren, Hansson, and Olve (1999) consider the virtual system as non physically existing as such, just enabled past software to exist.[28] The virtual organization exists within a network of alliances, using the Internet. This ways while the core of the organisation can be small but notwithstanding the visitor can operate globally be a market leader in its niche. According to Anderson, because of the unlimited shelf space of the Web, the cost of reaching niche goods is falling dramatically. Although none sell in huge numbers, there are so many niche products that collectively they make a pregnant profit, and that is what made highly innovative Amazon.com so successful.[29]

[edit]

Hierarchy-Customs Phenotype Model of Organizational Construction

In the 21st century, even though most, if not all, organizations are non of a pure hierarchical structure, many managers are nevertheless blind to the beingness of the flat community structure within their organizations.[30]

The business is no longer just a place where people come to piece of work. For most of the employees, the house confers on them that sense of belonging and identity –– the firm has get their "hamlet", their customs.[31] The house of the 21st century is not only a bureaucracy which ensures maximum efficiency and profit; it is too the community where people vest to and grow together, where their affective and innovative needs are met.[32]

Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) developed the Hierarchy-Community Phenotype Model of Organizational Structure borrowing from the concept of Phenotype from genetics. "A phenotype refers to the observable characteristics of an organism. It results from the expression of an organism'due south genes and the influence of the environment. The expression of an organism's genes is usually determined by pairs of alleles. Alleles are different forms of a gene. In our model, each employee'due south formal, hierarchical participation and breezy, customs participation within the organization, as influenced by his or her surround, contributes to the overall observable characteristics (phenotype) of the organization. In other words, just as all the pair of alleles within the genetic material of an organism determines the concrete characteristics of the organism, the combined expressions of all the employees' formal hierarchical and informal community participation within an system requite rise to the organizational structure. Due to the vast potentially dissimilar combination of the employees' formal hierarchical and informal customs participation, each arrangement is therefore a unique phenotype along a spectrum between a pure hierarchy and a pure customs (apartment) organizational structure."[32]

"The Hierarchy-Customs Phenotype Model of Organisational Structure views an organisation every bit having both a bureaucracy and a community structure, both equally well established and occurring extensively throughout the organization. On the practical level, information technology utilises the organizational chart to study the hierarchical structure which brings across individuals' roles and formal authorization within their designated infinite at the workplace, and social network assay to map out the community structure within the organisation, identifying individuals' breezy influences which usually do not respect workplace boundaries and at many times extend beyond the workplace."[5]

Run across as well informal arrangement

Open Value Network [edit]

Open Value Network, as well known equally OVN, is a transnational open network that makes heavy use of applied science to support its operations. It resembles the [centralized] Network blazon structure described in a higher place with the divergence that there are no formal mechanisms of power to allow centralization of control over the platform (or the technological infrastructure) that enables the activities of the network. Examples are Bitcoin, Ethereum, Sensorica, etc.

Moreover, Open Value Networks are permissionless, which means that anyone tin can go part of them without the need to become through a hiring procedure or to sign an employment contract.

These organisations agree together through gamification or prepare of incentives that are formally and directly linked to contributions and performance.

Distributed autonomous organisations [edit]

Decentralized autonomous organizations, also known as DAOs, are essentially autonomous Open Value Networks with most governance beingness "on chain", i.eastward. formalized as smart contracts, which are programmed rules that govern the operation of the ortganisation, minimizing human interference equally much as possible. Examples include The DAO.

History [edit]

Organizational structures adult from the ancient times of hunters and collectors in tribal organizations through highly royal and clerical power structures to industrial structures and today's post-industrial structures.

As pointed out by Lawrence B. Mohr,[33] the early theorists of organizational structure, Taylor, Fayol, and Weber "saw the importance of structure for effectiveness and efficiency and causeless without the slightest question that whatever structure was needed, people could fashion appropriately. Organizational construction was considered a matter of choice... When in the 1930s, the rebellion began that came to exist known as human relations theory, there was still non a denial of the thought of construction as an artifact, only rather an advocacy of the creation of a unlike sort of structure, one in which the needs, noesis, and opinions of employees might be given greater recognition." Even so, a dissimilar view arose in the 1960s, suggesting that the organizational structure is "an externally caused phenomenon, an outcome rather than an artifact."[34]

In the 21st century, organizational theorists such as Lim, Griffiths, and Sambrook (2010) are over again proposing that organizational construction development is very much dependent on the expression of the strategies and behavior of the direction and the workers equally constrained by the power distribution between them, and influenced by their environment and the outcome.[32]

Military command and control [edit]

There are correspondences between Mintzberg'south organizational archetypes and various approaches to military machine Command and Control (C2). Mintzberg'due south Machine Hierarchy represents a highly centralized approach to C2, with a narrow allocation of determination rights, restricted patterns of interaction amid system members, and a restricted flow of information. Mintzberg's Adhocracy, on the other hand, represents a more networked and less centralized arroyo to C2, with more individual initiative and self-synchronization. Information technology involves a broader allocation of conclusion rights, broader interaction patterns, and broader data distribution. Mintzberg's other system types (for example, the Professional person Bureaucracy and the Elementary Structure) autumn in between these ii.[35]

Operational and informal [edit]

The set organizational construction may not coincide with facts, evolving in operational action. Such deviation decreases functioning, when growing as a wrong organizational structure may hamper cooperation and thus hinder the completion of orders in due time and within limits of resource and budgets.

Organizational structures should be adaptive to process requirements, aiming to optimize the ratio of endeavour and input to output.

Configurations of organizational construction according to Mintzberg [edit]

Parts of arrangement [edit]

Diagram, proposed by Henry Mintzberg, showing the chief parts of organisation, including technostructure

Henry Mintzberg considers v principal parts of organization:[36]

  • Strategic apex (leaders of organization)
  • Middle line (managers of lower level)
  • Operating cadre (workers of lowest level, directly producing something or providing services)
  • Technostructure (analysts)
  • Support staff (helping other members of organisation to perform their role)

An additional element is organisational ideology.[36]

Mechanisms of coordination [edit]

Mintzberg considers 6 master mechanisms of coordination of work:[36]

  • Mutual adjustment (without formal, standardized mechanisms)
  • Direct supervision (when 1 person, leader of organization, gives straight orders to others)
  • Standardization of work processes (based on the documents that regulate work and are produced by technostructure)
  • Standardization of outputs (only the results of work are regulated)
  • Standardization of skills (based on preparing the specialists outside the organization)
  • Standardization of norms (based on organisation's values, ideology)

Configurations of organizations [edit]

Mintzberg considers 7 main configurations of organizational structure:[36]

  1. Entrepreneurial organization (strategic noon, straight supervision dominate)
  2. Machine organization (technostructure, standardization of work processes boss)
  3. Professional arrangement (operating core, standardization of skills dominate)
  4. Diversified system (middle level, standardization of outputs dominate)
  5. Innovative organization (support staff, mutual aligning dominate)
  6. Missionary organization (ideology, standardization of norms dominate)
  7. Political organization (no part or machinery of coordination dominates)

Entrepreneurial arrangement or Elementary construction has simple, informal construction.[37] Its leader coordinates the work using directly supervision.[37] There is no technostructure, niggling back up staff.[38] Such structure is usually found in organizations with environment that is unproblematic (so that one homo could take significant influence), only irresolute (then that flexibility of i human being would give a significant advantage over the bureaucratic structures).[37]

Car organisation or Machine hierarchy has formal rules regulating the work, developed technostructure and middle line, is centralised, hierarchical.[37] Such structure is common when the piece of work is simple and repetitive.[37] Organizations also tend to attain such structure when they are strongly controlled from exterior.[37] Also, such structure is mutual for organizations that perform work that is related to some sort of control (for example, prisons, police), or organizations with special safe requirements (for case, burn departments, airlines).[37]

Professional configuration or Professional person hierarchy more often than not coordinates the work of members of operating core, professionals, through their training (for example, in university).[37] Operating core in such organisation is big, eye line insignificant, as the professionals perform complex piece of work and have significant autonomy.[37] Technostructure is likewise insignificant.[38] Support staff, helping the professionals to do their job, is numerous.[37] Professionals participate in administrative work, thus there are many committees.[37] Such structure is common for universities, hospitals, law firms.[37]

Diversified Configuration or Divisionalized form consists of several parts having high autonomy.[37] Such structure is common for old, large organizations.[37]

Innovative Configuration or Adhocracy gathers the specialists of dissimilar fields into teams for specific tasks.[37] Such organizations are common when environs is complex and dynamic.[37] Mintzberg considers two types of such arrangement: operating adhocracy and administrative adhocracy.[37] Operating adhocracy solves innovative problems for its clients.[37] Examples of such organisation tin can exist advertizing agency or firm that develops the prototypes of products.[37] Administrative adhocracy has teams solving problems for the organisation itself.[37] As an example of such organization Mintzberg gives NASA when it worked on Apollo program.[37]

Missionary arrangement coordinates the piece of work through organisational ideology.[37] Formal rules in such organization are not numerous.[37] Such organizations are decentralized, the differences between levels are non significant.[37]

Political configuration happens when the power is mostly used through workplace politics.[37]

Bibliography [edit]

  • Lawrence B. Mohr, Explaining Organizational Behavior. The Limits and Possibilities of Theory and Research., Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1982.
  • Corporate governance
  • Corporation
  • Industrial and organizational psychology
  • Dynamic governance
  • Management
  • Organizational architecture
  • Organizational behavior
  • Organizational learning
  • Organizational culture
  • Organization development
  • Organizational psychology
  • Parent company
  • Value network
  • Feasible system theory
  • Organizational Cybernetics
  • Connectivity Integrator

References [edit]

  1. ^ Pugh, D. S., ed. (1990).Organization Theory: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  2. ^ a b Jacobides., Grand. Yard. (2007). The inherent limits of organizational structure and the unfulfilled role of hierarchy: Lessons from a near-state of war. System Scientific discipline, 18, 3, 455-477.
  3. ^ Feldman, P.; Miller, D. (1986-01-01). "Entity Model Clustering: Structuring A Data Model By Brainchild". The Calculator Journal. 29 (iv): 348–360. doi:ten.1093/comjnl/29.4.348. ISSN 0010-4620.
  4. ^ Baligh, Helmy H. (2006). Organisation Structures: Theory and Design, Assay and Prescription. Boston, MA: Springer. ISBN9780387283173.
  5. ^ a b Lim, Grand. (2017). Examining the literature on organizational structure and success. College Mirror, 43, ane, 16-xviii. http://www.cfps.org.sg/publications/the-college-mirror/commodity/1098
  6. ^ Grandjean, Martin (2017). "Analisi e visualizzazioni delle reti in storia. L'esempio della cooperazione intellettuale della Società delle Nazioni". Memoria due east Ricerca (ii): 371–393. doi:x.14647/87204. See also: French version (PDF) and English summary.
  7. ^ Weber, Yard. (1948). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, translated, edited and with an introduction by H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  8. ^ Burns, T. and G. Stalker. (1961) The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
  9. ^ Grayness C., Garsten C., 2001, Trust, Control and Post-Bureaucracy, Sage Publishing)
  10. ^ a b Heckscher C. (Editor), Donnellon A. (Editor), 1994, The Mail-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Modify, Sage Publications
  11. ^ Nicolaj Sigglekow and January W. Rivkin, Oct 2003, Speed, Search and the Failure of Simple Contingency, No. 04-019
  12. ^ Repenning, N. (2002). A Simulation-Based Approach to Agreement the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation. Organisation Science, thirteen, 2: 109-127.
  13. ^ Raymond Eastward. Miles, Charles C. Snowfall, Causes of Failure in Network Organizations, California Management Review, Summer 1992
  14. ^ Davis, Stanley Grand.; Lawrence, Paul R. (1978). "Issues of Matrix Organizations". Harvard Concern Review. Vol. 56, no. 3. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business Schoolhouse (published i May 1978). pp. 131–142. ISSN 0017-8012. Archived from the original on nine March 2019. Retrieved 9 March 2019.
  15. ^ (Starbucks.com (2008). Starbucks Coffee International. Available at: "Archived re-create". Archived from the original on 2008-xi-13. Retrieved 2008-11-12 . {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy equally championship (link) (accessed xx/ten/08))
  16. ^ a b Robbins, S.F., Judge, T.A. (2007). Organizational Behavior. 12th edition. Pearson Education Inc., p. 551-557.
  17. ^ Gratton, L. (2004). The Democratic Enterprise, Fiscal Times Prentice Hall, pp. xii-xiv.
  18. ^ Fried, Jason (April 2011). "Why I Run a Apartment Visitor". Inc. Retrieved 1 Sep 2013.
  19. ^ Grant, R.M. (2008). History of the Royal Dutch/Trounce Grouping. Bachelor at: http://world wide web.blackwellpublishing.com/grant/docs/07Shell.pdf Archived 2011-01-24 at the Wayback Machine (accessed xx/x/08)
  20. ^ Thareja P(2008), "Total Quality Organization Thru' People,(Part 16), Each 1 is Capable", FOUNDRY, Vol. 20, No. four, July/Aug 2008
  21. ^ Thareja P. (2007). A Total Quality Organisation thru'People Each 1 is Capable. Bachelor at: http://www.foundry-planet.com
  22. ^ Fishman C. (1996). Whole Foods Is All Teams. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/26671/whole-foods-all-teams
  23. ^ Gummesson, E. (2002). Full Marketing Control. Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 266.
  24. ^ Capell, 1000. H&G Defies Retail Gloom. Bachelor at: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/sep2008/gb2008093_150758.htm (accessed xx/ten/08).
  25. ^ Amaral, Fifty.A.Due north. and B. Uzzi. (2007) Complex Systems—A New Prototype for the Integrative Study of Direction, Physical, and Technological Systems. Management Science, 53, 7: 1033–1035.
  26. ^ Braha, D. and Y. Bar-Yam. (2007) The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Evolution: Empirical and Analytical Results. Management Science, 53, 7: 1127–1145.
  27. ^ Kogut, B., P. Urso, and G. Walker. (2007) Emergent Properties of a New Fiscal Marketplace: American Venture Capital Syndication, 1960–2005. Direction Science, 53, 7: 1181-1198.
  28. ^ Hedberg, B., G. Dahlgren, J. Hansson, and N.-G. Olve (1999). Virtual Organizations and Beyond: Discover Imaginary Systems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  29. ^ Anderson, C. (2007). The Long Tail. Random House Business Books, pp. 23, 53.
  30. ^ Butler Jr., J.K. (1986). A global view of informal organisation. Academy of Direction Journal, 51, 3, 39-43.
  31. ^ Stacey, G. (1974). The myth of community studies. C. Bell, H. Newby, (Editors), The Sociology of Customs: A Option of Readings. London, Frank Cass, 13-26.
  32. ^ a b c Lim, Thou., G. Griffiths, and Due south. Sambrook. (2010). Organizational construction for the twenty-first century. Presented the almanac meeting of The Institute for Operations Research and The Management Sciences, Austin. https://communities-innovation.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Organizational-Structure-for-the-Twenty-first-Century-220619i.pdf
  33. ^ Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  34. ^ Mohr, 50. B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Beliefs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  35. ^ Vassiliou, Marius, David S. Alberts, and Jonathan R. Agre (2015). "C2 Re-Envisioned: the Futurity of the Enterprise." CRC Press; New York; pp. 93-96.
  36. ^ a b c d Robertas Jucevičius "Strateginis organizacijų vystymas", „Pasaulio lietuvių kultūros, mokslo ir švietimo centras", 1998, ISBN 9986-418-07-0, p. 81-92
  37. ^ a b c d e f g h i j thousand l grand due north o p q r south t u v westward 10 y Victoria Lemieux "Applying Mintzberg'south Theories on Organizational Configuration to Archival Appraisal" // "Archivaria", 1998, 46, p. 32-85 [1]
  38. ^ a b Fred C. Lunenburg „Organizational Structure: Mintzberg's Framework" // „International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Multifariousness", 2012, Volume 14, Number 1

beckettmustor.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_structure