As fascinated as I am with the current political climate in America and the accompanying reporting of such – including the overuse of certain concepts and sweeping generalizations – I thought it timely that this week’s CMGT 500 reading included an introduction to the concept of the “species” of adhocracy. Then I chose to read and summarize an academic article which outlined the birth and transformation of the term adhocracy.
The article by Timothy E. Dolan of the Catholic University of South Korea traces the origin of the concept of adhocracy from its beginnings as a term (Bennis & Slater, 1964) used to describe teams of experts charged with carrying out specific, specialized projects in larger, bureaucratic organizations, to its more recent revision as a term used to describe “a kind of unsystemic response by policymakers to emerging issues, generally centered around American fiscal policy,” (Dolan, 2010).
Dolan’s article begins by outlining what adhocracy “is” and “is not,” much the same way that Gareth Morgan, in Images of Organization discusses the notion that different “species” of organization are desirable in dealing with the multiple different demands on any institution (Morgan, 1998). One of these species is adhocracy, as described by Henry Mintzberg (1979).
Morgan notes that adhocracy is an organizational form that is best used to manage complex tasks in unstable environments. In an adhocracy, project teams move fluidly in and out of the larger organization, accomplishing their tasks and moving on.
Dolan then clarifies what adhocracy is NOT: it is not – merely because it is a stark contrast to bureaucracy – an out-of-control organizational style that threatens to bankrupt the world. The article then outlines the transformation (Dolan calls it “rhetorical revisionism”) of the concept of adhocracy to one that the Republican Party (or Tea Party, depending on which debate one is watching) uses to describe the current administration’s “knee jerk reaction” to the financial crisis of 2009. Ironically, the Tea Party movement itself is imbued with adhocratic themes in that it is built to react efficiently to a stream of ever-changing political news and events, (e.g., sending busloads of protesters to break up Democrats on the “stump” to pass healthcare regulation!).
Dolan poses that “while it is true that adhocracy is offered as an alternative to the high structure associated with orthodox bureaucracy,” that adhocracy is also innovative, devoted to problem-solving and guided by achieving results. (Personal opinion alert: This is probably why Republicans use the term as a pejorative: that political party rarely is focused on problem-solving and achieving results!)
Dolan predicts that (claims by politicians aside) adhocracy will continue to morph into a “new adhocracy” that is capable of great growth as an organizational species in that it is highly capable of recognizing and adapting to ever-changing and volatile environments – which is, of course, our current political climate (not to mention that of our global economy).
Finally, in my favorite passages (I am a former sports writer, after all), Dolan uses professional sports organizations to describe the ways in which “new” adhocracies are built and used today, noting that entire sports leagues are beginning to model adhocracies by signing “specialist” players to take on certain aspects of the game (specialist teams to handle modern scouting or managerial duties: like that employed by the metrics-loving general manager of the Oakland Athletics, Billy Beane, recently chronicled in the film Moneyball).
References:
Dolan, Timothy E. (2010). Revisiting adhocracy: From Rhetorical Revisionism to Smart Mobs
Journal of Futures Studies, 15(2): 33 – 50
Morgan, G. (1998) Images of Organizations: Executive Edition, pp. 35-68)
Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Peggy, I'm so glad you wrote about this. As a lover of words, I was pretty wowed when I came across the term "adhocracy" during the readings. I even read it aloud to my husband. It's a nearly perfect word as the word itself says it all. I sorry to say that this word had slipped by me so I was really delighted by it.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't picked up on the use of the word in current politics but it makes sense that the right might use it as a pejorative because it means adaptation and thinking on your feet, but I’m not going to get political here. But if I might indulge myself a little more, I can totally see Frank Lutz pick up this word and turn it around into a talking point for the right. Someone needs to rescue this word.
It’s an especially apropos word in describing an organizational challenge. As we read this week and especially as it relates to contingency theory (Morgan, G., 1997), there’s no one way to achieve to organize a company, sometimes you’ve got to go ad hoc and to make ad hoc into a method is a pure stroke of genius. Obviously I’m a bit of a nerd.
I appreciate the etymology you included; such a great word deserves at least a little history. And if I may say, it’s such a pleasure to read your writing.
Peggy, very thoughtful post. I enjoyed learning more about the adhocracy species. You note that the current administration has often been called an adhocracy, though the term has been used in a pejorative manner. Do you think this is an accurate characterization? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteYou also mention that adhocracy is best used to manage complex tasks in unstable environments. Can you think of particular environmental contexts (or industries) where this form of organizing would be particularly advantageous?
Hi, Jessica:
ReplyDeleteThanks! I don't think that the current administration can be accurately characterized as an adhocracy. Although adhocracy is, as you noted, best used to manage complex tasks in an unstable environment (such as information technology, which changes every 48 seconds - I know that I just purchased by second new Smartphone in 9 months!), adhocracy as a successful structure in federal government might be nigh-on impossible! President Obama runs on a platform of "change" but as we have seen, in government, change is glacial. Even an adhocratic approach would not seem to be able to bring about change - or cope with it - as quickly as the President and his party would like.
Thank you, Megan!
ReplyDelete