Mintzberg identified five organizational archetypes - entrepreneurial, machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy, divisionalized, and adhocracy. Each has distinct structural features and implications. The entrepreneurial organization has a simple, flat structure controlled by few managers, allowing flexibility. The machine bureaucracy has standardized work and centralized decision-making for efficiency. The professional bureaucracy decentralizes decision-making to trained professionals. The divisionalized structure supports autonomous divisions for diversified products/markets. The adhocracy structure is innovative and non-bureaucratic to adapt to new industries. Organizational structures influence innovation and a template is needed to explain them.

1. Explain the organizational archetypes as described by Mintzberg and discuss how organizational
structure influences innovation.
Summarize Mintzberg's work with archetypes.
What key features and implications are involved in each archetype?
Why do we need a template for explaining the structure of an organization?
Mintzberg claimed we have too many managers and too few leaders. Do you agree or disagree
with this and why?
Solution
Mintzberg's Organizational Types:
The Entrepreneurial Organization: This type of organization has a simple, flat structure. It
consists of one large unit with one or a few top managers. The organization is relatively
unstructured and informal compared with other types of organization, and the lack of
standardized systems allows the organization to be flexible.
A young company that's tightly controlled by the owner is the most common example of this
type of organization. However, a particularly strong leader may be able to sustain an
entrepreneurial organization as it grows, and when large companies face hostile conditions, they
can revert to this structure to keep strict control from the top
The Machine Organization (Bureaucracy) : The machine organization is defined by its
standardization. Work is very formalized, there are many routines and procedures, decision-
making is centralized, and tasks are grouped by functional departments. Jobs will be clearly
defined; there will be a formal planning process with budgets and audits; and procedures will
regularly be analyzed for efficiency.
The machine organization has a tight vertical structure. Functional lines go all the way to the top,
allowing top managers to maintain centralized control. These organizations can be very efficient,
and they rely heavily on economies of scale for their success. However, the formalization leads
to specialization and, pretty soon, functional units can have conflicting goals that can be
inconsistent with overall corporate objectives.
The Professional Organization : According to Mintzberg, the professional organization is also
very bureaucratic. The key difference between these and machine organizations is that
professional organizations rely on highly trained professionals who demand control of their own
work. So, while there's a high degree of specialization, decision making is decentralized. This
structure is typical when the organization contains a large number of knowledge workers, and
it's why it's common in places like schools and universities, and in accounting and law firms.

2. The Divisional (Diversified) Organization : If an organization has many different product lines
and business units, you'll typically see a divisional structure in place. A central headquarters
supports a number of autonomous divisions that make their own decisions, and have their own
unique structures. You'll often find this type of structure in large and mature organizations that
have a variety of brands, produce a wide range of products, or operate in different geographical
regions. Any of these can form the basis for an autonomous division.
The Innovative Organization ("Adhocracy") : The structures discussed so far are best suited to
traditional organizations. In new industries, companies need to innovate and function on an "ad
hoc" basis to survive. With these organizations, bureaucracy, complexity, and centralization are
far too limiting.
Organizational theories have long considered the ways in which organizations evolve and adapt
to their environments, including the influence of technological change on the evolution of
organizations (see, Tushman and Nelson 1990). A core debate concerns whether organizations
can change and adapt to major discontinuous technological change and environmental shifts, or
whether radical change in organizational forms occurs principally at the population level through
the process of selection (Lewin and Volberda 1999). This literature includes at least three broad
views on the nature of organizational adaptation and change.
Organizational ecology and institutional theories, as well as evolutionary theories of the firm,
emphasise the powerful forces of organizational inertia and argue that organizations respond
only slowly and incrementally to environmental changes. This strand of work focuses on the way
environments select organizations, and how this selection process creates change in
organizational forms. A second view, the punctuated equilibrium model, proposes that
oganizations evolve through long periods of incremental and evolutionary change punctuated by
discontinuous or revolutionary change. It sees organizational evolution as closely linked to the
cyclical pattern of technological change. The punctuated model regards organizational
transformation as a discontinuous event occurring over a short period of time. The third
perspective, which might be described as strategic adaptation, argues that organizations are not
always passive recipients of environmental forces but also have the power to influence and shape
the environment. The strategic adaptation perspective stresses the role of managerial action and
organizational learning, and the importance of continuous change and adaptation in coping with
environmental turbulence and uncertainty.
Yes, i agree because all the managers are not managers this is because only few of the managers
are expert in solving managerial problems and are expert in their field of work. Like wise all the
leaders are not true leaders a leader is one who can change the whole gamut by his leadership
and only few leaders posses this quality.