|
| WebNote |
|
|
Click Here to go...
BACK |
Adhocracy as an Alternative to Bureaucracy |
|
| |
For an incisive examination of North American strategic planning practices, you should read Henry Mintzberg's 1994 book, "The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning". Not only does Dr. Mintzberg expose all of the pitfalls and quagmires inherent in the practice of formalized strategic planning, but he also makes a case for an organic organizational structure he calls an Adhocracy.
|
|
| |
For adhocracies, strategy and structure are fluid, emergent properties, constantly evolving to handle new conditions and possibilities. Adhocracies are team-driven organizations that are designed to innovate. Not in the sense of designing an organization by drawing various lines and boxes on an organizational chart. Rather, adhocracies are designed through the targeting of various market segments or fragments, and the development of critical competencies. To succeed, adhocracies must respond to these market segments and fragments, and to the needs of their members who will carry out this work.
|
|
| |
Innovation in adhocracies requires coordination through constant face-to-face communication. As the purpose of the coordination is innovation, the work process itself provides the opportunity for much learning. This is very different from the bureaucratic approach of regulating or controlling communication, and standardizing the work people do, the outputs they produce and the skills they have. At its best, this bureaucratic form of coordination can achieve stability, but never rapid innovation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Mintzberg, Henry. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Free Press. New York. 1994.
This penetrating examination of formalized strategic planning amounts to a scathing indictment of perhaps the most pervasive management myth that human organizations have ever seen. Unlike many of the writers on planning, Mintzberg backs up every one of his charges with details, logic and well-deserved doses of sarcasm. Unlike many of the books on planning, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning is lighthearted and even entertaining. This is an exceptional achievement, given that this book is a review of sorts of the copious and banal literature on planning. The major theme of the book is that the term Strategic Planning is an oxymoron, and its practice is inherently self defeating, because planning is about reductive analysis, whereas strategy is about constructive synthesis. Mintzberg deftly slaughters entire herds of sacred cows, and sows upon their pastures virile seeds that organizations can nurture into bumper crops of effective strategy.
|
|
|
