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).