This is a structural system that does not hold the formal rules and regulations in an organization. It usually has no standardized procedures in handling the daily problems. In this system, hierarchies are not applicable and the system is low on formalization. It is best suitable for temporary goals. The system is highly flexible and very responsive in handling urgent situations, both quickly and efficiently, especially in dynamic environments (Abrahamson, 1993; Buchanan, 1985; Robbins, 1994; Bilton and Bonnet, 1997).
Here, there is high horizontal specialization of jobs and the employees are professionals. A large part of the organization is grouped into ad-hoc project teams whose responsibility is to solve the specific problems. There is no monopoly of the power to innovate as the management favors innovation and creativity.
This system was developed in order to handle the rapidly changing organizational goals and demands. This is the reason why the system is common in highly risky organizations, up coming (newly developing) industries, and the short-term organizations (Buchanan, 1985; Baum, 1987). However, this structural system can not handle large groups. This is the reason why it is rarely used in large organizations. It is best suited for organizations that are starting up or those with specific tasks and dissolves after completion of the tasks. It gives such organizations the freedom to discover and exploit their respective markets.
The main strengths of this system are its creative and adaptive ability, and at the same time giving room for collaborations from highly specialized personnel. Its few rules encourages individual creativity and innovation. In addition, the horizontal managerial structure allows for more collaborations and interactions (Cole, 1992; Buchanan, 1985).
The main weaknesses of this system include conflicts which result from the system’s excess freedom. The system has no clear cut in the subordinate relationships. It also experiences ambiguities over the responsibilities and the authority. The organizations activities, under this structural system, can not be compartmentalized. Such a system does not enjoy the advantages of standardization (Buchanan, 1985).
We should note that Adhocracy is just a theoretical structural design and not a complete structure on its own (Baum, 1987; Prottas, 1979). It only offers information that helps in setting up the organization’s guidelines. The implementation of such a system depends entirely on how individuals interpret it (Cole, 1992).
Reference
Abrahamson, B, 1993, Why Organisations Sage publications.
Baum, H, 1987, Invisible Bureaucracy, Oxford Press.
Bilton, T. Bonnet, K. 1997, Introductory Sociology, MacMillan Press.
Buchanan, D, 1985, Organizational Behaviour, Prentice Hall International
Cole, K. George, C, 1992, Supervision in action, Prentice Hall
Prottas, J, 1979, People Processing, Lexington Books
Robbins, S. Barnwell, N, 1994, Organisation Theory in Australia, Prentice Hall,
Yosef, R. Almond, G, 1973, Bureaucracy and the public, Basic Books Inc.
