Direkt zum Hauptbereich

Henry Mintzberg's "Understanding Organizations … Finally!"

“Understanding Organizations … Finally!” by Henry Mintzberg is a book that will transform how you think about organizations, not because it says anything radical, but because its conclusions are so robust, you’ll wonder at how you ever got along without it./1/ With this book Mintzberg has reworked and updated his 1979 classic “The Structuring of Organizations”./2/ Given that Mintzberg has studied organizations as professor of management at McGill University for over fifty years, its title is quite modest. If he has “finally” understood organizations, we ought to pay attention. I nevertheless waited in vain for a discussion of lean and agile methods and how they fit within his framework. So, in this review, I will try to figure out why, as the readers of Teamworkblog may have similar questions.

Mintzberg’s Four Basic Forms

The cornerstone of Mintzberg’s organizational theory are the four forms/3/, which I will come to shortly. In exploring the four forms, Mintzberg is pitching explicitly against the likes of Frederick Taylor, who thought scientific management could find the one efficient form. Mintzberg neither believes that one form exists nor that it’s a matter of science—art and craft play major roles, too. Thus, Mintzberg arrives at his four forms empirically by looking at how companies pursue strategy, how they are structured, how they coordinate work, how roles are assigned, how people, information and action are managed, their age, their environment and the technologies they use. His discussion of these factors is in itself useful for understanding what makes organizations tick the way the do.

The four forms are ideal-typical. Virtually no organization belongs exclusively to one or the other. But, an organization will show a specific tendency. In the course of its lifespan, it may also evolve from one to another type. It may also be consciously directed toward a different type, as it adapts to changing conditions.

The four forms are:

  • Personal Enterprise
  • Programmed Machine
  • Professional Assembly
  • Project Pioneer

Mintzberg's four forms with their four primary forces
Mintzberg’s four forms with their four primary forces


The personal enterprise

The personal enterprise tends to a simple structure because it follows the vision and instructions of a single chief. His frequent example is Apple under Steve Jobs. These organizations favor flat hierarchical structures and little bureaucracy, as the visionary chief is immersed in (and decides) the details. They are often younger and smaller and respond well to dynamic environments. Start-ups typically fall in this category. Its primary force is consolidation (around the chief).

The programmed machine

The programmed machine operates by hierarchy, rules, controls, systems and processes. These organizations are usually older and larger, having evolved and grown. Their technocratic structures have highly developed divisions of labor, especially between the regular workers and management. Furthermore, they often employ a class of analysts to design the processes and the architecture. They thrive via cost efficiency, size and standardization. As such, their stability makes them vulnerable to dynamic marketplaces. Its primary force is efficiency.

The professional assembly

The professional assembly occurs where highly-skilled, professionals work separately at their specific tasks, and yet achieve coordination of their actions via the standardization of their skills. These skills are normed through education and may require extensive on-the-job training. Mintzberg names hospitals, universities and orchestras as examples. The expertise of the professionals dictates how they work together, and each knows her role. Its primary force is the professionals’ proficiency.

The project pioneer

The project pioneer is a dynamic, decentralized organization. It coordinates work mostly through mutual adjustment. Such organizations tend to have fluid power-decision structures, adhocracies that may be temporary or permanent. They emerge and thrive in environments with high complexity and they need sophisticated expertise. They are usually highly inefficient, while nevertheless being effective at creating extraordinary things. Its primary force is collaboration.

How do lean and agile methods fit Mintzberg’s framework?

I found the four basic forms compelling as a way to think about the different organizations I have encountered. None of them exhibits all of the characteristics. Mintzberg nonetheless clearly states that most companies will mix them, while nevertheless falling broadly in to one category. But, as I read along, questions arose. Are start-ups really more typically personal enterprises? Why not project pioneers? (Maybe it depends on the startup.) Is there a point where programmed machines crumble under their own bureaucratic mass?

My biggest questions arose, however in the realm of lean and agile methods, as much of my work involves introducing them to teams and whole organizations. Unless I missed it, Mintzberg never mentions either concept. On first thought, I might have expected “lean” to appear within the chapter on the programmed machine, just as I imagined “agile” (or a specific method like Scrum) to show up with the project pioneer. It is likely the case that Mintzberg is merely describing the forms and showing their pros and cons. The details are not important for his argument.

On closer look, however, tensions emerge. The programmed machine, according to Mintzberg, strives for efficiency, and Lean’s goal of eliminating waste fits well within this concern. Programmed machines also exhibit strong divisions of labor. Their large sizes allow them accommodate whole teams of analysts to design the enterprise’s processes and architecture. Like the management, these experts are frequently detached from the workplace and the workers. By contrast, Lean (and the Toyota Production System) highlights the value of decentralized innovation gained through continuous improvement by everyone. Furthermore, the Toyota emphasis on “Genchi Genbutsu”, i.e. seeing for oneself what is happening where the work is performed, applies especially to management. It would appear that Toyota has long understood the weaknesses in the programmed machine and found ways at mitigating against those dangers.

By highlighting the project pioneer’s embrace of complexity, ambiguity and dynamic environments, the lack of discussion about agile methods seems even more of an oversight. Methods like Scrum are highly collaborative and strongly recommend the fluidity of cross-functionality to sustain high productivity within the team. Mintzberg’s project pioneers are adhocracies with a lot of managers running around in matrices to sustain the mutually adjusting connections. Scrum, however, has no “managers” in this sense. And, decisions lie either with the (single) product owner or with the scrum team. Like with lean, the Scrum doesn’t fit that well within this form because it is not ambiguous about the team organization, even if the other environmental characteristics—complexity and dynamism—seem to apply.


I have not resolved these tensions. I would be interested to hear others’ thoughts about them. I nevertheless highly recommend “Understanding organizations”, as it did help me do just that. I shall not say “finally”, however. Moreover, I trust that a good social scientist like Mintzberg uses the word in his title with a good dose of self-irony.


Notes

/1/ Henry Mintzberg, Understanding Organizations ... Finally! Structuring in Sevens, (Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc, 2023); A useful summary of his four forms may be found in Henry Mintzberg, “Four Forms That Fit Most Organizations,” California Management Review 66, no. 2 (February 1, 2024): 30–43, https://doi.org/10.1177/00081256231214816.

/2/ Henry Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research (Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1979).

/3/ In this book, Mintzberg adds three further forms, that he considers common enough, but less fundamental than the other four. They are:

  • The divisional form
  • The community ship
  • The political arena.

I list them here for the sake of completeness. The interested reader should consult Mintzberg.

Kommentare

Beliebte Posts aus diesem Blog

Microsoft Teams: Die neuen Besprechungsnotizen - Loop-Komponenten

  Haben Sie in letzter Zeit in einer Teams-Besprechung die Notizen geöffnet? Dort sind inzwischen die Loop-Komponenten hinterlegt. Die sind zwar etwas nützlicher als das, was zuvor zur Verfügung stand. Trotzdem ist noch Luft nach oben. Und es gibt sogar einige ernstzunehmende Stolperfallen. Hier ein erster, kritischer Blick auf das was Sie damit tun können. Und auch darauf, was Sie besser sein lassen.

Selbstbewertungsfragen für den Alltag in Arbeitsgruppen aus Sicht von Mitarbeitenden

Welche Fragen können wir Mitarbeiter:innen stellen, um herauszufinden, ob agiles Arbeiten wirkt? Es gibt bereits eine Menge an Fragebögen. Aber ich bin nicht immer zufrieden damit.

Wie lassen sich Ergebnisse definieren? - Drei Beispiele (WBS, CBP und BDN)

Ich habe schon darüber geschrieben, warum das Definieren von Ergebnissen so wichtig ist. Es lenkt die Aufmerksamkeit des Projektteams auf die eigentlichen Ziele. Aber was sind eigentlich Projektergebnisse? In diesem Beitrag stelle ich drei Methoden vor, um leichter an Ergebnisse zu kommen.

Agile Sternbilder: Die Entdeckung kosmischer Agilitäts-Superkräfte

Hast du dich je gefragt, ob dein Sternzeichen deine Fähigkeiten in einer agilen Arbeitsumgebung beeinflusst? In diesem Blogpost tauchen wir ein in die faszinierende Welt der Astrologie und ihre mögliche Verbindung zu modernen Arbeitsweisen. Entdecke, wie die Sterne deine agilen Stärken prägen könnten. Ob überzeugter Agilist oder neugieriger Sternzeichenliebhaber – dieser Artikel kann dir neue Perspektiven eröffnen und vielleicht sogar dein nächstes Teamprojekt inspirieren!

Microsoft Lists: mit Forms und Power Apps komfortabel mobil arbeiten

In meinem Kundenkreis sind viele Menschen, die den Arbeitsalltag nicht vorwiegend auf dem Bürostuhl sitzend verbringen, sondern "draußen" unterwegs sind. Vielleicht in Werkstätten oder im Facility-Management. Es ist so wichtig, dass die Schnittstellen zu den Abläufen im Büro gut abgestimmt sind. Microsoft 365 hat so einiges im Baukasten, man muss es nur finden und nutzen.  In diesem Artikel spiele ich ein Szenario durch, das auf Microsoft Lists, Forms und - für die Ambitionierteren - Power Apps setzt.

Wie Agilität den Kundennutzen steigert - Einige Argumente für Berater:innen

In Zeiten wirtschaftlicher Unsicherheit fragen sich viele, ob agile Beratung noch eine Zukunft hat. Die Antwort liegt in der konsequenten Orientierung am Kundennutzen. Qualität setzt sich durch, wenn sie messbare Verbesserungen bei Umsatz, Kosten und Leistungsfähigkeit bewirkt, anstatt sich in Methoden und zirkulären Fragen zu verlieren. Dieser Artikel zeigt, wie agile Beratung nachhaltige Veränderungen in Unternehmen schafft und warum gerade jetzt gute Berater:innen gebraucht werden, um Organisationen widerstandsfähiger zu machen.

Scrum und Hardware: Es kommt auf die Basics an

Man kann Hardwareprodukte agil entwickeln. Zum einen kommt Scrum aus der Hardwareentwicklung. Die Softwerker haben die Hardwarekonzepte auf ihre Situation übertragen. Zum anderen hat Hardwareentwicklung heute ganz viel mit Software zu tun. Gerade in frühen Phasen kann man sich mit Simulationen noch viele Wege offen halten und mehrere Pfade parallel verfolgen. In diesem Beitrag empfehle ich eine Podcastfolge und ein Buch, für alle, die mit der Geschwindigkeit ihrer Hardwareentwicklung nicht zufrieden sind.

Warum eine Agile Transformation keine Reise ist

Die agile Transformation wird oft als eine Reise beschrieben. Doch dieser Vergleich kann viele Unternehmen in die Irre führen oder Bilder von unpassenden Vergleichen erzeugen. Transformationen sind keine linearen Prozesse mit einem klaren Ziel, sondern komplexe und dynamische Entwicklungen. Dieser Artikel zeigt, warum Agilität kein Weg mit einem festen Endpunkt ist.

Warum bringen Warum-Fragen so wenig?

Frust! Wieder gibt's am Ende des Meetings keine Lösungen, sondern nur Diskussionen darüber, wer was warum verbockt hat. Wieder geht nichts voran. Warum passiert uns das immer wieder? (Ha! Da ist sie wieder, die Warum-Frage.)