Contrasting features of
Bureaucracy (Machine Org.) & Adhocracy (Innovative Org.)
Source: Henri Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management, NYC: Basic Books, 1998.
Contrasting these two forms of organizational management in theory like this is convenient but far too simple. In the real world ORG managers are not strictly loyal to just one model or the other. For example, they might introduce Formal Bureaucratic structure to bring more order and efficiency to a startup that grew too fast but then they find that innovative competitors are taking away their customers. So they introduce project teams with looser, informal methods hoping to get more creativity ...
Result: we find many ORGs that are hybrids, confused, bastard creatures, trying to combine management methods that are not naturally aligned. Players who work in different "languages" and cultures, not used to collaborating must somehow do that and do it well. It's the BOTH/And situation.
HOW can these Both/And situations be managed?
( They are not all the same, of course.)