Adhocracy and Bureaucracy Are the Two Sides of One Coin - Essay Example

Running Head: Concept A Concept on Adhocracies [Institute’s A Concept on Adhocracies Usually, organizational approaches have become melodies in research zones for auxiliary management and outlining control relationships. Adhocracy and Bureaucracy are the two sides of one coin. ‘Adhocracy’ is a sensation that refers an opposite conception of ‘Bureaucracy’ (Mintzberg & McHugh, pp. 160-197, 1985). Adhocracy system is a procedure of professional administration having the tendency that can provide an individual with an edge and self-organization. It is in directive to achieve responsibilities. ‘Alvin Toffler’ first interpreted the word ‘Adhocracy’ in the year 1970 (Mintzberg & McHugh, pp. 160-197, 1985). The origin of the term adhocracy demonstrates that it specifically defines to explain the flexible dealing with daily changing objectives and motives. Nowadays, in the modern culture, these types of operational systems can be under implementation in the firms having high-risk rates to survive and among the blue-collar organizations, and in those organizations that plan to short-term projects or developed on a temporary basis. Similarly, if the organization persists to develop its structure permanently and is aware of the future risks then it has to maintain its bureaucratic structure to fight with the long term business deals. It also helps to maintain the company’s good will and repute in professional market. This term clearly contradicts to the term bureaucracy that refers to set of defined rules and set hierarchy in accomplishing organizational goals (Thatchenkery, pp. 67-74, 2010). It is a method of supple and casual organization and administration instead of unbending bureaucracy. Adhocracy (Dolan, pp. 33-50, 2010) later on revised in some common literature and in governmental pomposity to define a kind of unsystematic answer by politicians to developing issues, generally focused around American fiscal policy and in foreign policy development, unanimously that resembles Lind bloom’s "muddling through" metaphor (Thatchenkery, pp. 67-74, 2010) than a flexible, but determined organizational strategy. In other words, Adhocracy is simply a flat structure organization that does not follow any hierarchy (Dolan, pp. 33-50, 2010). The norms and regulations of such an organization rely upon a typical non-bureaucratic chunk of ideas. Selective decentralization is a specific characteristic of adhocracy that means a focus of control for decision-making. This phenomenon exist in functional divisions within the organization for example the decentralization of the pool system in some organizations taking place of centralized culture and also hierarchical system that majorly defines the outlines for responsibilities in the respective areas that helps in capturing errors and biases more easily. In the adhocracy, the business is proficient of rearranging its own structure including vigorously altering the work flow, shifting accountabilities and adjusting to changing environments (Aart & Wielinga, pp. 567-599, 2004). Adhocracies are the organizations and systems with a very beautiful concept in which a system operates in a non-hierarchical structure and has no uniform procedures for dealing with daily problems, is low in reinforcement and prearranges a momentary life. The variance between an adhocracy and the dual intent of bureaucracies is that there is a lack of typical job description definition and no classification of programmed circumstances in adhocracy. Simultaneously, professional bureaucracy and machine bureaucracy (Baum, pp. 29-43, 1987) is an older shape of Adhocracy, when adhocracy takes a growing form, it may lead to these two possible compositions. Machine Bureaucracy (Huber, pp. 50-67, 2006) is an obvious in its rigid observance to the important individualities of Weberian style bureaucracy. It is a preferred model in a constant atmosphere with routinized procedures. In any case, workers within an adhocracy will have to find innovative keys to exceptional problems. Various unusual methods can operate to regularize it like negotiation or bargain. Another essential characteristic of adhocracy is its segmental alignment (Huber, pp. 50-67, 2006). It is comprised of specific items (except for its administrative core and strategic apex) accumulated to achieve explicit plan missions and pull to pieces upon a specified projects achievement. It is also a need to clearly define and understand a difference between administrative and operational adhocracy as both have different impacts on working sector in their own way. Like every other process, Adhocracy and bureaucracy have different benefits as well drawbacks; it depends strongly on the demand of the situation that what process regularizes in any case, however, both have a well-organized structure to follow. The welfares of adhocracy (Huber, pp. 50-67, 2006) supports ‘Change Management’ concept, which nowadays penetrating in market structure very rapidly. Adhocracy supports innovation, new ideas, and creativity. It enables the individuals to think, discover, and perceive changed environment. Moreover, its horizontal administrative structure helps in coordination and communication between top management and low management more efficiently as compared to a rigid bureaucratic system. Experts distinguish that adhocracies are not revolutions and are real insofar as the harmonizing connections between mechanisms are competent and operational (Dolan, pp. 33-50, 2010). On the destructive side, conflicts and clashes are natural parts of adhocracy. There is no clear subordinate relationship. Uncertainties exist over authority and everyday jobs. The problem is that adhocracy (Dolan, pp. 33-50, 2010) does not provide an unsystematic response to social and economic strategy challenges by those who originally conceived it, whereas, the adhocratic model endures to cultivate and proliferate into a different combinations of reactions. However, it seems that both are traveling in a complete opposite positions. Hence, in any short term or long term plan in any organization demands a structured and organized plan. Nowadays and in future as well, adhocracy is a cultured form of system which every organization has to embrace because it is bringing a positive change to professional market whereas bureaucratic structure resists to change and do not welcome any flat structure in management system. Robert H. Waterman (1993, pp. 23-29) defines adhocracy as an "administrative system that trials the bureaucracy in demand to embrace the new." In addition, this is so true for the rigid market structure to get accommodative and flexible. A great idea creates a great business and to think about an innovative idea, one has to get rid of all boundaries and exceptions as prosecuted in bureaucratic system. Adhocracies have a shining future and there are many successful examples related to this. For example, adhocracies are facilitating entrepreneurship services and sports market also. On the portrait of worldwide market, it is highly necessary to embrace adhocracy in a positive manner in order to meet the challenges of new market optimistically and to compete with the rivals. References Aart, Chris J. V., Wielinga, Bob. 2004. “Organizational building blocks for design of distributed intelligent system.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, pp. 567-599. Baum, H. 1987. Invisible Bureaucracy. Oxford University Press. Dolan, Timothy E. 2010. ‘Revisiting Adhocracy.’ South Korea Journal of Futures Studies. Volume 15, Issue 2, pp. 33-50. Huber, Diane. 2006. Business & Economics. Elsevier Health Sciences. Mintzberg, Henry, McHugh, Alexandra. 1985. ‘Strategy Formation in an Adhocracy.’ Administrative Science Quarterly. Volume 30, Issue 2, pp. 160-197. Thatchenkery, Tojo. 2010. Positive Design & Appreciative Construction. Emerald Group Publishing. Waterman, Robert H. 1993. Adhocracy. W. W. Norton. Read More