Page 47 -

36 MANAGING KNOWLEDGE WORK AND INNOVATION

strategy, as often tends to be the case within knowledge-intensive firms, then
an ‘adhocracy’ is the most appropriate organizational configuration. The
adhocracy is almost the complete opposite of the traditional bureaucracy. An
adhocracy genuinely de-emphasizes a hierarchical structure in preference to
a dynamic organizational structure based on self-formed and self-managed
project teams, decentralized decision-making and minimal formalization in
terms of policies, rules and procedures. Within an adhocracy, Mintzberg sug-
gests, control tends to be based on professionalism and shared, organizational
values – referred to as cultural or normative control – rather than on more
typical forms of direct control such as direct supervision and adherence to
rules and procedures. To summarize this analysis, Table 2.2 highlights the
distinctive characteristics of the adhocracy in comparison to the traditional
bureaucracy.
The adhocracy can also be contrasted with traditional professional service
firms where conflict can often arise between competing professional and organi-
zational values (Raelin, 1991). For example, professionals will naturally want to
complete client work to the best of their professional abilities, applying discipline-
based knowledge (legal, financial, scientific) to client problems. However, time
is always considered to be a precious resource in these firms and directly related
to the fee structure. There can therefore, on occasion, be conflict between the
professional values of the lawyer or accountant, for example, to do a ‘good job’
and the needs of the firm to manage the firm’s resources across the client base
as efficiently as possible. According to Raelin, managing partners within these
types of professional service firm are required to find ways of mediating these
conflicting tensions.
This conflict of values, however, is not necessarily so apparent in some
more contemporary types of knowledge-intensive firm where the notion of
‘professionalism’ is broader and tends to refer to general beliefs and expec-
tations around high standards of performance and a dominant work ethic.
This is explored further later in this chapter. Thus, in general, the informal,

Table 2.2 The bureaucracy and the adhocracy compared

Bureaucracy Adhocracy
Multiple level hierarchy Minimal hierarchy
Work processes organized around functional Work processes self-organized around teams
groups
Many formal rules, policies and procedures Few or no formal rules, policies and procedures
Direct control characterized by supervision Normative control characterized by
self-management
Centralized decision-making Decentralized decision-making
Coordination achieved through explicit rules and Coordination achieved though mutual adjustment
procedures
Highly mechanistic form Highly organic form

6/5/09 6:58:03 AM
9780230_522015_03_cha02.indd 36 6/5/09 6:58:03 AM
9780230_522015_03_cha02.indd 36