The polar typologies of mechanistic and organic organizations proposed by Burns and Stalker demonstrate how differences in the technological and market environment in terms of the speed of change and complexity affect organizational structures and innovation management.
Lawrence and Lorsch suggest that mechanistic and organic structures can coexist is reflected in the contemporary debate on the importance of developing hybrid modes of organization (ambidextrous organizations) that are capable of coping with evolutionary and revolutionary technological changes.
Another important contribution is that of Mintzberg, who synthesized a good part of the existing work on organizational structures and proposed a series of archetypes that reflect the basic structural configurations of companies that operate in different environments.
In most companies one of the five Mintzberg archetypes will predominate (Simple Structure, Mechanical Bureaucracy, Professional Bureaucracy, Divisional Form and Adhocracy).
Two models of learning organization are suggested (Lam, 2000-2002): Form J and Adhocracy:
- Form J: designates an organization endowed with exploitation-based learning which derives its innovative capacities to develop collective competencies and problem-solving routines of the organization. The Adhocracy: This type of organization relies more on the expertise of different specialists organized in flexible, market-based project teams that can respond quickly to changes in knowledge and skills.
Both the J form and the Adhocracy are learning organizations with significant innovative capabilities, but they clearly differ in their knowledge configurations, in their learning patterns and in the type of innovative competencies generated.
There are other types of organizations called ambidextrous, they are those that manage to maintain their competitive advantage thanks to a combination of models in which two management trends coexist: one in which stability and control are combined to guarantee efficiency in the short term and another in which risks are assumed to generate long-term innovation.
The ambidextrous organization concept is attractive, however the conditions that must be met to ensure long-term success and its impact on innovative performance have yet to be studied.
At present, there is still a need to deepen the study of competitive structures and strategies adopted by Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs, hereinafter).
In addition, the advances that have occurred in recent decades in fields such as communication, transportation or technology, together with the globalization of the economy, have caused a continuous proliferation of new organizational forms adopted by SMEs. Family businesses, business-to-business networks, or industrial districts are examples of this. This trend calls into question the traditional superiority conferred on large multinational companies over SMEs and further underlines the need to study the organizational structures that these companies adopt, as well as the competitive strategies that accompany them. In this way, it will be possible to identify the main advantages inherent in the structures and strategies adopted by SMEs,which can become key competitive weapons in the current environment.
Traditionally, the existence of two ideal types of organizational structures has been considered: the bureaucratic or mechanical structure versus the organic or adhocratic.
Burns and Stalker (1961) define an organic or adhocratic structure, as one capable of adapting to unstable conditions, where jobs lose a large part of their formal definition, demarcation of tasks is impossible and power is fully distributed among employees. members of the organization. In contrast, mechanical or bureaucratic structures provide a totally orderly world of work. Taking this basic classification of organizational structures, SMEs could be classified within the category of organic.
Based on this classification, SMEs adopt a simple structure, according to Camisón and Boranat:
| TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES | |||
| JOB | ANALYSIS UNIT | METHODOLOGY | CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES |
| Burns and Stalker (1961) | Big company | Deductive Classification | Organic Mechanical |
| Mintzberg (1979) | Big company | Deductive Classification | Simple Structure
Mechanical Bureaucracy Professional Bureaucracy Divisional form Adhocracy |
| Olmi (1991) | SME | Deductive Classification | Sole Owner Company
S-Corporation C-Corporation |
| Chaston (1997) | SME | - | Conservative Mechanics
Conservative Organic Entrepreneur / Mechanic Entrepreneur / Organic |
| Miles (2000) | SME | Cluster analysis | Competitive
Efficiency Oriented Operations and Product Oriented Specialized Low price oriented Complacent Non-Innovative Companies Aggressive Entrepreneurial Companies |
| Nightdress (2001, 2003) | Both | Deductive Classification | Integrated Models:
• Unitary Organization • Vertically Integrated Organization • Multidivisional Organization Transition Models: • Neo-Fordist Organization • Post-Fordist Organization • Network Organization Flexible Models: • Independent SME Model • Virtual Group Model • Industrial District Models |
| Meijaard (2005) | SME | Cluster analysis | Entrepreneur with Submissive Team
Collaborating boss with an open structure Entrepreneur team Boss-under control Boss-high control Singular structure U-form Matrix organization M-form |
COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES IN SMEs
The competitive strategy implies the search for a favorable competitive position in a certain sector. The classic definition of generic competitive strategies developed by Porter, which distinguishes between cost leadership and differentiation.
The differentiation strategy requires a high investment in skills. To safeguard the durability of differentiation, companies must constantly develop new skills that nurture innovative capacity. On the other hand, the cost leadership strategy requires high investments in tangible assets, such as general-purpose machinery aimed at achieving economies of scale.
In the first place, the early ideas that associated SMEs with niche market strategies have been overcome. This logic was based on the belief that SMEs could not compete with large companies. Second, it is recognized that competitive strategy orientation works differently in large companies and in SMEs.
MAIN STRATEGIC ADVANTAGES OF THE SME
1. Flexibility
Flexibility is the strategic advantage of the SME par excellence and in which the true competitive value of SMEs resides in essence. Flexibility allows these companies to be able to respond quickly and favors business competitiveness.
2. Innovative capacity
The high innovative capacity of SMEs is another of the great strategic advantages of these companies, particularly it is considered that SMEs, largely as a consequence of their highly organic organizational structure, develop the implementation of changes with less difficulty.
3. Capacity for the generation, management and accumulation of knowledge
Knowledge capacities include all those unique competencies of the company that reflect its capacity for creation.
4. Entrepreneurial strategic orientation
Entrepreneurial orientation is defined by the degree to which senior management is prone to taking risks related to their business in order to favor change and innovation that confer competitive advantages and allow them to compete aggressively with other companies.
Specifically, it is considered that the larger the size of the organization, the lower its entrepreneurial orientation, and conversely, finally, it is also important to consider the type in which SMEs operate. The entrepreneurial orientation is greater when they operate dynamic environments.
5. Use of high-performance organizational practices
The flexibility inherent in the organizational structures of SMEs as well as the orientation of their competitive strategies promote the use of high-performance organizational practices such as total quality management practices.
Some authors consider that the bureaucratic organization constitutes a barrier for innovation and organizational learning, since it inhibits creativity, continuous exploitation and the transfer of knowledge between the people who are part of the organization.
The new organizational forms, in opposition to the tendency towards the growth of bureaucratic organization, tend to define small units that focus on the core activities of the company and that are organized in the form of networks with other units in order to achieve economies of scale. and scope. On the other hand, the new organizational forms are supported by the creation of interdisciplinary and self-managed groups made up of people who are committed to the organization and who are capable of developing multiple tasks.
The organizational structure is a means that helps the management to achieve its goals and long-term vision. In fact, innovative organizations restructure to adapt to major changes.
Recent studies confirm the thesis, now most of the strategic frameworks focus on three dimensions.
- Innovation strategies (organic): It is a strategy to introduce large and unique innovations (example 3M) Cost reduction strategy (mechanistic): Costs are tightly controlled, avoiding incurring in innovations or unnecessary marketing expenses and prices are reduced when sold a commodity (eg, vendors of generic food products). Imitation strategy (mechanistic and organic): Try to take advantage of the two previous strategies, seeking to reduce risks to a minimum and maximize opportunities (example, manufacturers of mass consumption clothing and companies such as IBM).
The learning organization
One of the engines of learning and renewal of organizational structures is to be at the forefront and to seek constant innovation to reorganize during and after a change.
An organization becomes a learner when it shares and uses knowledge. In learning-oriented organizations there is a close link between the vision, the general strategy of the organization and the innovation strategy that takes place in its culture, since they tend to have an attitude and styles open to change.
Three types of organizational learning can be established: learning to handle the current knowledge of the organization, creating new knowledge or innovating and transmitting or disseminating knowledge to other areas and members of the organization.
According to P. Senge, the creation of learning organizations is based on the practice of five systemic disciplines: personal mastery, mental models, team learning, shared vision and systems thinking.
| SYSTEMIC DISCIPLINE | DESCRIPTION |
| Personal domain | The person stops being reactive to be creative, without neglecting that there are things that cannot be controlled. |
| Mental models | They make this change through the acquisition of new skills that facilitate understanding how mental models work; These skills include reflection and inquiry. The first is related to awareness and how these influence actions. The second is related to the way in which one interacts with others in conflictive or complex situations |
| Team learning | It is the process of getting organized and developing the team capacity to |
| generate the desired results. There are three critical dimensions: thinking keenly about whole problems, the need for innovative and coordinated action, and the role of team members in other teams. | |
| Shared vision | It is an expression that is derived from the shared sense of vision and destiny of the organization, it includes the following elements:
• The vision: It is an image of the future that you want to create. • Values: They constitute a guide to conduct that will help people move towards the vision. • The omission purpose: Represents the fundamental reason for the existence of the organization. • Goals: They represent something concrete and achievable, what people are committed to achieving |
| Systemic thinking | It is a conceptual framework, a body of knowledge and tools that has been developed in recent years. It is the discipline that integrates all the others by merging them into a single coherent body of theory and practice. |
The distinctive features of a learning organization can be classified according to its strategic dimension and its organizational characteristics.
A network organization confers great flexibility and capacity for change to the organization, enabling it to become a learning organization.
Another organizational structure is adhocratic, in which the project teams have spaces of freedom, where individuals interact and reflect on the information exchanged to generate new solutions tailored to the problems faced.
Adhocratic organizations do not have an established hierarchy, a formal department, formal rules, and standard procedures for dealing with routine problems. It is characterized by great horizontal differentiation, little vertical differentiation, little formality, decentralization, and great flexibility and sensitivity. A negative aspect is that conflicts are a natural part of the Adhocracy, there is ambiguity regarding authority and responsibilities. Simply put, it lacks the strengths of standardized work.
The hypertext structure is characterized by having a hybrid character. Changing features of a bureaucratic organization with features of an adhocratic organization. It is the type of organization that is proposed as specially gifted for the creation of knowledge.
It makes it possible to take advantage of the main advantage of a bureaucratic organization, its efficiency and stability, and at the same time, foster creative capacity, through a non-bureaucratic and networked structure that is precisely what favors the creation of knowledge.
The network company constitutes the new organizational paradigm of capitalism, its nature consists of being connected and its success depends on its ability to generate robust and stable networks. A series of characteristics of this type of structure can be cited:
- Permeable borders. Internal and external borders are permeated and information flows from one side to the other unhindered. Hierarchical flattening. Collaborative work grows, as the hierarchy becomes blurred. Project orientation. The tasks and processes of the company are more oriented towards projects, and not so much from a functional perspective. Commitment and trust. Belonging to this network organization implies a high degree of commitment and trust between the different parties involved. Direct communication. It can be said that network companies are conceived as rich communication environments.
The hypertropic organization analyzes the proper functions of each clover leaf. The leading nucleus appears on the first page. It is made up of the essential people for the organization, the irreplaceable, highly qualified professionals. The second sheet contains everything that is not strategic. The functions grouped in this category are outsourced to third companies.
The third sheet groups part-time and temporary workers. They are people who charge for their product not for their time.
Bibliographic references:
- https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/articulos/organizaciones–innovadora–estructura–aprendizaje–y–adaptacion/ Innovative organizations: structure, learning and adaptation - OpenMind, retrieved from: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/articulos/ innovative – organizations – structure – learning – and – adaptation / CHANGES IN ORGANIZATIONS, Eumed.net, http://www.eumed.net/ce/2011a/mgt.htm Robin Izquierdo, Advantages and disadvantages of SMEs compared to large companies, Integria IMS. https://integriaims.com/ventajas–and–desventajas–de–las–pymes/ COMPANY REDESIGN (and II): ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS FOR INNOVATION - PDF, Docplayer.es, https://docplayer.es/1593350 –Rediseno – of – the – company – and – ii – organizational – forms – for – the – html
