To understand adhocracy, let us first understand its literal meaning. The word ‘ad-hoc’ means ‘for purpose’ and the suffix ‘cracy’ means to crack down. It is antonym to bureaucracy.
The term was first used in 1970 by Alvin Toffler and thereafter popularized by Heniy Mintzberg. According to Robert H. Waterman, Jr, adhocracy is ‘any form of organization that cuts across normal bureaucratic lines to capture opportunities, solve problems and get results.’ Adhocracy form of organizations is innovative and capable to solve problems. Some of the characteristics of adhocracy are:
Image Source: c14608526.r26.cf2.rackcdn.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
i. More organic structure
ii. Less formalization of behaviour
iii. Specialization-based formal training
iv. Encouragement of mutual adjustment
ADVERTISEMENTS:
v. Low standardization of procedures
vi. Roles are not clearly defined
vii. Selective decentralization
viii. Work of the organization rests on specialized team; hence, they become the power centre
ADVERTISEMENTS:
ix. Horizontal job specialization
x. High cost of communication
xi. Culture based on democratic and non-bureaucratic work
xii. Cross-departmental task forces
In adhocracy form of organizations, hierarchical barrier being absent, people across the functions get authority to make decisions and take actions concerning organizational interests.
The structure of any organization facilitates achievement of organizational goals and objectives. Hence, decisions on the type of organizational structure are very important. The most common type of organizational structure is bureaucracy. However, the bureaucratic model in itself is not an organizational structure; it can only provide hypothetical guidelines to create own business design, more of a blue print type and descriptive in nature.
Thus, bureaucracy, per se, is not the final product. Adhocracy, on the other hand, is a structural system that does not consider traditional ways of bureaucracy, i.e., minus formal rules and regulations. It is flexible and quickly adaptive to the dynamic environmental changes.
Both the structural systems have their advantages and disadvantages. Each deals with situations differently. Bureaucracy is mechanical. It approaches problems systematically through predetermined guidelines. Adhocracy, on the other hand, challenges problems with a more flexible approach to ultimately achieve the final goals.
Organizations with adhocracy structure can respond to the changes quickly, but bureaucratic organizations need time to respond to change, they being more rigid about procedural norms. Again in adhocracy, conflict and group rivalry may be more, whereas, in bureaucracy such occurrences are less since interpersonal relationships are more formal and the entire system is regimented.
Therefore, we cannot say that a particular system is good or bad. Whether an organization is functioning well or otherwise, it generally depends on the nature and type of the activities of the organizations. The latter may be the right-fit to wither both adhocracy and bureaucracy.