Lee Bolman, together with Terrence Deal, published in 2008 an excellent book on organizational management called Reframing Organizations. The book, the result of many years of research, presents a complex historical analysis of the largest organizational structures in the world today. Analyzing organizations across sectors, from Harvard University to McDonald’s, Bolman and Deal found that even the most complex structures need to adopt a certain level of adhocracy, which allows them to be shaped according to changes in their respective sectors.
Bolman and Deal state that “at any given moment, an organization’s structure represents its resolution of a continuing set of organizational dilemmas” (p. 80), meaning that every structural organization needs to retain a certain level of fluidity and adaptability. This level of adaptability allows changes to happen without much bureaucracy, ad hoc, which are themselves the result of a continuous practice of self-analysis and criticism.
The authors here use the “Five-Parts Model,” which was created by Mintzberg, to illustrate how organizations can restructure themselves adaptably. The base sector consists of the Operating Core, the people who perform basic tasks. This is followed by the Administrative Component that oversees and controls operations. Next we see the Technostructure and support agents that facilitate and analyze the work of others, which is followed by the Strategic Apex that “focus on the external environment, determine the mission, and provide the grand design” (p. 62). For the authors, this model is highly adaptable in five basic configurations: simple structure, machine bureaucracy, professional bureaucracy, multidivisional structures, and adhocracies. What Bolman and Deal found in their research was above all the need for fluidity in today’s organizational world, which is dynamic and constantly changing. This organizational blueprint serves as a tool to redesign antiquated structures and organizational charts that allow little flexibility.
We currently live in a time when organizations must be constantly sensitive to the demands of the sectors where they serve. I personally am a technophile and avid reader of blogs, digital publications, and other fast information media. Some of my favorites include Pew Research, Harvard Business Review, and Business Insider. I am always perplexed when I read articles with titles like “8 Companies That Failed to Innovate,” or “17 Jobs That Did Not Exist a Decade Ago,” or even “Examples of How to Adapt to the Internet.” Regardless of the subject or sector, what always captures my attention is the volatility and unpredictable character of the reality that many organizations and individuals must navigate today. This shows that many organizational maps no longer serve to navigate the currents of today’s world.
Bolman and Deal’s findings generate practical implications for my own missionary practice. I have been working in full-time ministry for more than 10 years. For most of that time I worked alongside a leader who has been a formative influence on me. Together, we planted churches, structured NGOs and educational organizations in a variety of cultural and socioeconomic contexts. This individual is now a consultant to churches and pastors, while I am a missionary in Greece. Among the many principles I learned is an example from the theology of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 that maintains that “life produces order, but order itself never produces life.” By this he meant that the organism precedes the organization, which in itself is indispensable to sustain and preserve the life of the organism.
For him, models of ecclesiastical organization could never produce new life. On the contrary, it is the life that already exists in a community that must be the form shaping the type of structure needed to preserve it. In many ways, this principle agrees with Bolman and Deal’s insights that say, “a given resolution of structural tensions may be appropriate to a particular time and circumstance, but changes in the organization and its environment will eventually require some form of structural adaptation” (p. 80).
I work in a context that has perhaps undergone more dynamic changes than any other in the Western world in these last 10 years. Indices in Greece are always surprising. Emigration of Greeks to other European Union countries grew more than 1,200 percent, and the unemployment rate continues to break records. In this context of volatility, many ecclesiastical structures have also been forced to adapt organizationally and functionally. Some moved to a model that goes beyond the temple, focusing on the functionality of homes. Others became more multicultural communities, extending their local reach. Just as in creation, for there to be fruit, the seed must die. For the new to emerge, the old must perish. Unfortunately, in this picture we see that many churches have also died. But the life in the church has adapted to flourish even in this difficult context.
