Anarchies and Adhocracies
There are some organizational classes which have no precise goals or agreed
upon action plans to achieve them. Thompson and Tuden (1959) developed a
2x2 matrix to explore these "fringe organizations" (Scott p. 296):
Computation is most like normal bureaucratic decision-making, when
goals are defined and technology is relatively determined (Scott p. 297).
Judgment is used when goals are agreed to but the means to achieve
them isn't. When causal beliefs are agreed but there are differences in
valuing the alternative outcomes, compromise is required, often through
procedural rules and negotiation processes between interest groups.
Finally, when both outcomes and means are not in agreement, it often calls
for an inspirational or charismatic leader to to lead the organization
to some agreement on goals and means. These leaders often arise in times
of crises. Eventually the charasmatic leadership will evolve into a more
bureaucratic one as procedures and goals are established and institutionalized.
March and his colleagues label these unclear situations (inconsitent and
ill-defined preferences, unclear technologies, fluid participation) as organized
anarchies and claim they are more prevalent and normal than theorists
think (Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1976). All organizations have elements of
organized anarchies, and people in them have less control than is espoused
on management theories. People have cognitive limits, external conditions
constrain alternatives but are often go unnoticed, and choices do not always
lead to action (Scott p. 298).