1

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHETYPES

Organizational Archetypes
Grantham University












2
ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHETYPES

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine Mintzbergs organizational archetypes and to explain
why an organizational template is a good idea. It will also explore briefly, the subject of
teamwork and leadership and why there are not enough true leaders today.














3
ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHETYPES

Organizational Archetypes
To be successful, an organization has to be made up of quality people. It also has to be
structured in such a way as to promote success. Successful businesses today are based on
structural archetypes that were products of the work of Henry Mintzberg, a renowned
management theorist. Henry Mintzberg graduated from McGill University and has written 15
books and about 150 articles all dealing with organizational structure. According to him, an
organization's structure comes from its strategy, the environmental forces it experiences, and the
way the organization itself is built. When all of these work well together the organization will be
successful, but if they do not interplay nicely the organization will not be successful (Markgraf,
2014). To better illustrate the idea he was promoting Mintzberg came up with basically five
different structural archetypes. A couple of them may be referred to by different names but the
five included are 1) the simple or entrepreneurial archetype, 2) the machine bureaucracy
archetype, 3) the professional archetype, 4) the divisional archetype, and 5) the innovative (also
known as adhocracy) archetype (Mintzberg's Organizational Configurations, 2014). Each of
these archetypes demonstrate a different way that a business can be structured and each of them
are like an umbrella, encompassing a number of different types of businesses within each. But
together, they represent the organizational structure of pretty much every business that has any
type of success. So this begs the question: What are the key features of each archetype?
First, we have the simple or entrepreneurial archetype. This kind of structure basically
consists of one large unit with one or just a few top managers. It is relatively informal compared
to other organizations and the lack of standardization allows it to be more flexible. This category
is made up of mostly small or very young companies. As it grows this type of business structure
4
ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHETYPES

begins to become inadequate as the decision-making load proves to be too much for the small
management staff (Mintzberg's Organizational Configurations, 2014).
Next we have the machine organization. This group is made up of mostly large
manufacturers and government agencies. For the most part, tasks are formalized and there is a
high level of standardization which allows the organization to function much like a machine.
Jobs are clearly defined and procedures are regularly analyzed for efficiency. This works well
but the downside is that this formalization can lead to specialization, and this can result in
functional units having conflicting goals that are inconsistent with the corporations objectives
(Mintzberg's Organizational Configurations, 2014).
Third, and closely related to the machine structure, is the professional organization.
While also being very bureaucratic, the difference is that decision-makers are highly trained
professionals who have control over their own work. These specialized skills and the autonomy
that these highly trained professionals enjoy makes the decision making more decentralized in
this structure and that makes it much more complex. This type of organization is the kind where
we find schools and universities falling within (Kokemuller, 2014).
In large and mature organizations you will often find the next archetype, and that is the
divisional organization. In this type there are many different product lines and business units.
There is a central headquarters with a number of autonomous divisions making their own
decisions. One of the strengths of this type of organization is that with the autonomy of the
separate divisions it leaves the central team to focus on the big picture. It also allows them to
make sure that necessary support systems are in place for the entire organization. A significant
weakness of this type is that with so many autonomous divisions you end up having a significant
5
ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHETYPES

duplication of resources and activities and at times even conflict between divisions since they are
competing for the same company resources (Kokemuller, 2014).
The last archetype is the innovative organization or adhocracy. This is best suited to
new companies that need to be innovative just to survive. Filmmaking, pharmaceuticals, and
consulting businesses all fall within this category. Within this type of organization power is
delegated to wherever it is needed which can bring up some control issues, but at the same time
gives them unequaled flexibility. They can also move their talent around to get them involved in
any project where they may be needed. This allows them to respond very quickly to change.
Because the talent moves around to where it is needed, teams can be self-organizing and the
sharing of authority can be just as effective when shared horizontally as it is when shared
vertically. This really sets an adhocracy apart from other archetypes because in all the others
authority really only flowed vertically to varying degrees. But here we have horizontal sharing
too, which as we mentioned, can result in some problems with control and who has final
authority over some decisions. But for the most part this is a very successful type of organization
for project-based companies or those that require the ability to adjust to quick changes quite
often (Mintzberg's Organizational Configurations, 2014).
So, we find that Mintzbergs five archetypes cover most successful businesses that we
see. But these archetypes are broad descriptions of the organization. To really understand
individual organizations we need to get more specific. This is where templates come in handy.
They can be based on the archetype, but they illustrate more specifically how things will be
structured and relate to each other in the business. They can quickly make clear what the
purpose, mission, and goals are for the organization. You need templates because they can be
6
ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHETYPES

used to very quickly see the current state of the organization and how different resources can be
manipulated to improve the business. A template also makes it much easier to show employees
the purpose of the business, how it is to run, and what their role will be. In this way it serves as a
visual aid (Microsoft, n.d.).
Mintzberg also made the claim that we have too many managers and too few leaders.
This paper supports that statement. A manager is a position to be filled. In businesses with a high
turn-over of employees, such as the fast food industry or quick-marts, someone may be promoted
to the position of manager but only because there is no other choice. It is not because they are
qualified. This happens a lot today. So we have a lot of managerial positions being filled by
persons who are untrained and do not possess true leadership skills. Then once promoted a lot of
managers seem to want to be friends first and leaders second. It is not a bad thing to have a
friendly relationship with your workers, but not at the expense of leading them properly. The
result is that the business suffers. But it is a hard fact to change since we have such a big
turnover in workers today (Peshawaria, 2003).
So in conclusion, Mintzberg was a theorist with several good ideas. His work in the field
of organizational and managerial theory has helped people for decades to better understand how
businesses should be classified and how they should be structured and run. By studying his ideas
a person can certainly better understand the benefits and weaknesses of basing an organization
on a particular type of structure and also how the decision making process should be handled.


7
ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHETYPES

References
Kokemuller, N. (2014). Mintzberg's Five Types of Organizational Structure. Retrieved August
16, 2014, from Houston Chronicles: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/mintzbergs-five-
types-organizational-structure-60119.html
Markgraf, B. (2014). Mintzberg's Five Types of Organizational Structure. Retrieved August 16,
2014, from azCentral: http://yourbusiness.azcentral.com/mintzbergs-five-types-
organizational-structure-2705.html
Microsoft. (n.d.). Business organizational chart. Retrieved August 16, 2014, from Microsoft.com
Templates: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/business-organizational-chart-
TC006088976.aspx
Mintzberg's Organizational Configurations. (2014). Retrieved August 16, 2014, from
mindtools.com: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_54.htm
Peshawaria, R. (2003, May 19). Too Many Bosses, Too Few Leaders. Retrieved August 16,
2014, from LeadershipNow.com:
http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog/2011/09/too_many_bosses_too_few_leader.
html