Adhocracy

An adhocracy is a type of organizational structure in which power and decision-making are decentralized, often in the hands of small groups or individuals. This structure is typically used in organizations that are dynamic and fast-changing, and where decision-making needs to be flexible and responsive to change. The adhocracy structure is often contrasted with more traditional, hierarchical structures, where power and decision-making are centralized and controlled by a small group of people at the top of the organization.

It involves temporary organization structure changes. The term is derived from the Latin "ad hoc", setting out the one time operation. Allows to maximize the operational flexibility through a small degree of formalization of structures. Works best in a dynamic environment, in small organizations. Concept of adhocracy was developed by Henry Mintzberg, and is often called as Mintzberg model or Mintzberg structure.

Employee behaviour in adhocracy culture

In an adhocracy culture, employees are generally given more autonomy and freedom to make decisions and take action. This can lead to a sense of empowerment and increased motivation among employees, as they feel that their contributions are valued and that they have a greater degree of control over their work.

As a result, employees in adhocracy cultures may be more innovative, creative, and willing to take risks, as they are not constrained by rigid rules and procedures. They may also be more adaptable and resilient, as they are able to respond quickly to changes in the environment.

However, an adhocracy culture can also be challenging for employees, as they may feel overwhelmed by the lack of structure and guidance. They may also struggle with a lack of clear roles and responsibilities, and may find it difficult to collaborate and communicate effectively with others.

Fig.1. Types of company culture (Source: Cameron and Quinn 2011)

Employees working under adhocracy orient its efforts on the outside, they also are looking for contacts, procuring contractors and associates. Work is done in teams dealing with a particular task, functions and positions (including executives) are fluid. There is also a variable number of people dealing with important issues, adapted flexibly as is progresses and develops. Persons employed full-time are a small part of all those involved in the implementation of the task. Reciprocal arrangements for the principles of cooperation, substantive issues related to the implementation of tasks and division of labour, are the primary means of coordinating.

Overall, employees in adhocracy cultures tend to be highly self-motivated and proactive, with a strong focus on results, but they may also require a high degree of trust and support from the organization.

Adhocracy (Ad hoc) and organizational structure

In an adhocracy, the organizational structure is typically decentralized and flexible, with a minimal hierarchy and a flat organizational structure. Decision-making is often dispersed among small groups or individuals, rather than being centralized in a small group of leaders or managers.

This type of structure allows for greater autonomy and flexibility for employees, who are able to make decisions and take action without needing approval from higher-ups. It also enables the organization to respond quickly to changes in the environment, as decision-making is more decentralized and closer to the front-line.

In terms of structure, Adhocracy organizations have no predefined roles and responsibilities, and employees are encouraged to take on different roles as needed. This results in a more dynamic and fluid organization, where individuals and teams are constantly forming and re-forming based on the needs of the situation.

This type of organizational structure may be well suited for organizations operating in fast-paced or rapidly changing environments, such as technology or startup companies. However, it may be less effective in organizations that require a high degree of control or coordination, such as those in heavily regulated industries.

Examples of adhocracy culture and organizational structure

Some examples of organizations that have implemented an adhocracy structure include:

• Google - The company is known for its flat organizational structure and decentralized decision-making, which allows for rapid innovation and experimentation.
• Zappos - The online shoe retailer is famous for its flat structure and emphasis on employee autonomy and empowerment, which has helped the company to foster a strong culture of innovation and customer service.
• Valve Corporation - The game development company is known for its decentralized structure, where teams are self-managed and are given autonomy to make decisions, this help in creating a culture of innovation and experimentation.
• IDEO - The global design and innovation consultancy firm is known for its flat organizational structure, which allows for greater collaboration and creativity among its employees.
• W. L. Gore & Associates - The company is known for its unique organizational structure, which is based on self-organizing teams, minimal hierarchy, and a focus on innovation and experimentation.

It's worth noting that these examples are not exclusively adhocracy, and may have a mix of different structures, but they all have an element of adhocracy in their culture or decision-making processes.

Advantages and disadvantages of ad hoc organizational structure

Advantages of adhocracy include:

• Flexibility and adaptability: Adhocracy allows organizations to respond quickly to changes in the environment, as decision-making is decentralized and closer to the front-line.
• Innovation and creativity: Adhocracy cultures tend to foster creativity and innovation, as employees are given autonomy and freedom to take risks and come up with new ideas.
• Empowerment and motivation: Adhocracy empowers employees and gives them a greater degree of control over their work, which can lead to increased motivation and job satisfaction.
• Faster decision-making: Decision-making is more dispersed among small groups or individuals, which can lead to faster and more effective decision-making.

Disadvantages of adhocracy include:

• Lack of structure and guidance: Adhocracy can be challenging for employees, as they may feel overwhelmed by the lack of structure and guidance.
• Difficulty in collaboration and communication: Adhocracy can make it difficult for employees to collaborate and communicate effectively with others, as there is no clear hierarchy or defined roles and responsibilities.
• Lack of control and coordination: Adhocracy may be less effective in organizations that require a high degree of control or coordination, such as those in heavily regulated industries.
• Dependence on the self-motivated individual: Adhocracy culture may not be suitable for employees who lack self-motivation and initiative, as they may struggle to adapt to the lack of structure and guidance.

See also:

• Characteristics of bureaucracy
• Formalization
• Unorganization

Adhocracy — recommended articles

Bureaucratic organization — Types of organizational culture — Network structure — Linear structure — Organic organization — Organizational systems — Hierarchical dependence — Centralized organizational structure — Determinants of culture — Investment environment

References

• Autier, F. (2001). Bureaucracy vs. Adhocracy: a case of overdramatisation?. École de management Lyon.
• Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. John Wiley & Sons.
• Hays, S. W. (1991). From adhocracy to order: organizational design for higher education research and service. Research management review, 5(2), 1-17.
• Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative science quarterly, 160-197.
• Mintzberg, H. (1981). Organization design: fashion or fit?. Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.
• McKenna, C. D. (1996). Agents of adhocracy: management consultants and the reorganization of the executive branch, 1947-1949. Business and Economic History, 25(1), 101-111.
• Waterman, R. H. (1993). Adhocracy. WW Norton & Company.