Chapter 9: Sources of Structural Complexity: The Technical Core

Henry Mintzberg (1979) said that:

"Every organized human activity -- from the making of pots to the placing of a man on the moon -- gives rise to two fundamental and opposing reqirements: the division of labor into various tasks to be performed, and the coordination of these tasks to accomplish the activity. The structure of an organization can be defined simply as the sum total of the ways in which it divides its labor into distinct tasks and then achieves coordination among them".

Organizations tend to move toward higher levels of complexity (Scott p. 226), largely through added structure. Those structural features that define the division of labor are stuctural differentiation, occupational and role specialization, departmentalization, and multidivisional forms. Those that define the coordination and control of work are formalization, hierarchy, centralization, and lateral information flow facilitation.

Contingency theory is a popular orietating framework for this topic. There is no best way to organize, but depends on the tasks performed and the environment faced. Lawrence and Lorsch and Galbraith use a more formal, rational open system approach, while the Tavistock group, Cole, and Ouichi use a more natural approach that streeses the effects of informal groups.

Technology (and the Technical Core)
Technology is broadly referred to as the work performed by the organization (Scott p. 227). It includes both the hardware, skills, and knowledge of the workers. There is much overlap between technology, task environment, and environment in organizational literature. The environment is both a supplier of an organization's technology while it is simultaneously acted upon by the organization. Some measures of technology are complexity, uncertainty, and interdependence.

Technology and Structure - Rational System Views

The rational system predictions are basically :

1. The greater the technical complexity, the greater the structural complexity. The structural response to technical diversity is organizational differentiation.

2. The greater the technical uncertainty, the less formalization and centralization.

3. The greater the technical interdependence, the more resources the must be devoted to coordination.

Thompson (1967) argues that pooled interdependence is managed by standardization, sequential interdependence by plans and schedules, and reciprocal interdependence by feedback and mutual adjustment. Each type of coordination has associated costs.

Galbraith (1973, 1977) uses information processing capacity as an artifact and determinant of structural features. Information requirements increase as a function of increasing diversity, uncertainty, and interdependence of work processes (Scott p. 231). He then explores various coordination mechanisms organizations use to adapt to increased demands for information processing. These include everything from rules and schedules and ultimately to project teams and matrix systems.

Empirical Evidence for Technology and Structure (Rational View)
Studies have generally supported the predictions of contingency theory, but also notes the relations as rather weak (see Scott, 1990). Lots of methodological problems plague this type of research. Many definitions of structural features have been employed that make cross- comparisons difficult.

Furthermore, studies have been done at different levels of analysis with corresponding empirical issues in each group. Work groups often have multiple tasks and structures than do not neatly fit into any of the existing theoretical simplifications.

As a result, many of the studies are contradictory. Some structures are simple at one level and complex at another. Most researchers attempt to test one feature at a time when most are highly correlated. See Scott pp. 242-244 for a description of some studies.

Thus the rational system perspective offers in important but weak link between technology and structure, as it fails to account for the effects of social context and institutions.

Technology and Structure: Natural System Views

As seen before the natural system approaches began largely as a critique of rational system approaches to the technology-structure link. They challenge the notion that technology determines organizational structure.

Some natural theorists argue that technology is primarily socially constructed, and that society influences the choice of technology. Others take a more middle stance and argue that while technology can constrain structures somewhat they do not deterministically create them -- technology and structure are loosely coupled. Again they emphasize the importance of the informal structure over the formal structure.

Socio-technical systems and Work Design
Tavistock/socio-technical theorists emphasize that both the social and technical systems must be jointly optimized. They believe that repetitive, undemanding work undermine commitment and performance motivation (Scott p. 249). At the work group level, competition and close supervision causes stress, petty deceptions, scapegoating, and low morale (Scott p. 249). Properly structured work groups, it is assumed, can provide incentives, assistance, and social support better than individual job design programs.

Organic Systems and Clans
Burns and Stalker (1961) studied firms in England and noticed two types of management style -- mechanistic and organic. Mechanistic styles were found in more stable environments, and flexible, organic systems were used in unstable systems. Ouichi defined organic systems as clans, and notes they have transaction-cost benefits and long-term career stability.

Professional Organizations
"Technical complexity does not invariably give rise to greater complexity of structure; it may give rise instead fo greater "complexity" of the performer" (Scott p. 253). One can confront greater complexity by hiring people better trained to deal with it. It works best with uncertain jobs requiring little interdependence.

Professionals often simultaneously to both their home organization and professional organizations, which can have both advantages and disadvantages.