The simple structure It presents minimal differentiation of units and few hierarchical levels, a vague division of labor and a very low level of formalization of behaviors. Fundamentally organic, and coordination is achieved through direct supervision. The power to make decisions and control the functioning of the organization is concentrated in the executive director, who is the central and basic part of this type of structure.
Workers are part of this structure, there are hardly any staff members, middle managers and support technicians. The groups are formed on functional and flexible criteria and their coordination depends on the executive director. Communication flows are basically informal and occur between the direct member and all the other members. The workflow is flexible and the tasks to be performed are not very specialized and quite interchangeable between workers.
Decisions are made in management and this centralization makes quick responses possible. It is the director’s responsibility to formulate strategies and plans. Conditions of this type of structure They are organic organizations that allow rapid adaptation to environments changing simple in nature. Dynamic environments, with little foreseeable future and little complexity that are the most suitable, which, due to their flexibility and simplicity, present a great capacity for adaptation. The technical system is of little complexity and little regulation. They can exist without staff and technical support, presenting a low degree of bureaucratization and formalization. Structure that occurs mainly in small organizations that have only been in existence for a few years.
Type of structure that a large part of organizations adopt in their early years and that many small organizations maintain throughout their existence. The different variables tend to be configured so that they present a “gestalt” effective structural under certain conditions, but that may cease to be so in others. Advantages and disadvantages of simple structures That decisions are centralized in the person of the director, with direct knowledge of the progress of the organization, favors the flexibility and the adaptability of organizational responses. This can lead to confusion between issues that are general and strategic in the organization and those that refer to specific problems.
Some decisions may be misunderstood by focusing the director’s interest on others. Structure that has the risk of depending on a few individuals, the managers. Having little formalized the procedures, positions, etc. The person who has the information and directs the organization is central. Their unforeseen disappearance can pose a significant problem for these organizations. A positive aspect is the satisfaction it produces in many of its employees because it is small, with easy interpersonal relationships, without large hierarchies, with work that is not very divided, etc.
There are people who perceive them as highly restrictive. El Salmi and Cummings They point out that top-level managers were more satisfied in small organizations, those at medium or low level were more satisfied in large organizations. Differences that can also be found in employees at other levels. Type of organization that has been criticized for its paternalistic, autocratic nature and not very suitable for current organizational needs, which makes them anachronistic social entities; however, they exist and in some contexts they are effective and adaptive.
In recent decades, the need to obtain data on the structures of non-bureaucratized organizations has been emphasized.
It is necessary to establish structural typologies broad enough to encompass the multiplicity of existing organizations. There are many environmental, contextual and structural dimensions of the organization and numerous combinations that can result from these factors.
Mintzberg (1979) raises the problem taking as a starting point the configuration hypothesis, according to which effective organizations would achieve internal consideration between the different parameters that determine them. Consistency that gives rise to logical configurations of contingency factors and structural parameters that characterize the main types of organization.
The combinations of these parameters are multiple, but the types of organization that allow a categorization of real organizations are:
- simple structure,
- mechanical bureaucracy,
- professional bureaucracy,
- divisionalized form,
- the “adhocracy.”
The systematic perspective does not consider the relationships between the different variables in a bivariate and unidirectional manner but rather understands them as “gestalts” of contingency factors and structural factors. There are no dependent and independent variables, anything depends on anything else. Organizations, at least effective ones, try to change the contingency and structural parameters that they can to maintain the coherence of their gestalts.