Applying Mintzberg's Theories on Organizational ..., Exercises of Management Theory

Download Applying Mintzberg's Theories on Organizational ... and more Exercises Management Theory in PDF only on Docsity! Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration to Archival Appraisal* VICTORIA LEMIEUX RÉSUMÉ Cet article applique les théories de Henry Mintzberg sur la configuration organisationnelle à l’évaluation archivistique dans le but de démontrer comment la théorie des organisations peut aider l’archivistique. L’article présente un certain nom- bre d’hypothèses relatives à la gestion des documents et à l’évaluation archivistique sur la base des théories de Mintzberg. On les compare ensuite aux études de cas dévelop- pées par Helen Samuels et JoAnne Yates dans le but d’en vérifier la validité. Finale- ment, on présente une méthodologie pour l’application des théories de Mintzberg à la réalisation d’évaluations archivistiques. L’article conclu que les théories de Mintzberg et les hypothèses relatives à la gestion des documents et à l’évaluation archivistique qui en découlent, offrent aux archivistes des moyens plus rapides et plus précis pour l’iden- tification des documents de valeur archivistique que ceux offerts par les théories et stratégies actuelles. Enfin, on termine en affirmant que, compte tenu de l’utilité des théories de Mintzberg dans le cas de l’évaluation archivistique, la théorie de l’organisa- tion offre un potentiel élevé dans le cadre du renouvellement de la théorie archivis- tique. ABSTRACT This article applies Henry Mintzberg's theories on organizational config- uration to archival appraisal as a means of demonstrating how organizational theory can inform archival theory. The article presents a number of record-keeping and archi- val appraisal hypotheses based on Mintzberg's theories. It then compares these hypoth- eses to appraisal case studies by Helen Samuels and JoAnne Yates as a means of verifying the validity of the hypotheses. Finally, a methodology is presented for apply- ing Mintzberg's theories to conduct appraisal. The article concludes that Mintzberg's theories, and the record-keeping and appraisal hypotheses derived from them, provide archivists with a faster and more precise means of identifying sites of archivally signif- icant records than existing appraisal theories and strategies. It further concludes that, given the utility of Mintzberg's theories for archival appraisal, organizational theory offers great potential for informing archival theory. Introduction One of the perennial, and perhaps most perplexing, questions for the archivist is: what to keep and what to throw away? It has also become one of the most pressing questions, as the volume of material which the archivist must Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 33 appraise continually mounts. In a recent article for the American Archivist, Terry Cook points out that it was estimated in the mid 1980s that the paper records of the approximately 170 formal institutions of the Government of Canada, if laid end-to-end, would encircle the globe 144 times, or complete eight round trips to the moon, and would amount to the equivalent, every three years, of two million books for each archivist at the National Archives of Can- ada to appraise. Cook goes on to state that electronic records could amount to as much as between one hundred and one thousand times the volume of paper.1 Clearly, the rising tide of records in all forms gives the archivist a strong impetus to seek answers to the appraisal question. Over the years, many answers have been advanced. Traditionally, appraisal focused on evaluating a particular set of records against the Schellenbergian typology of values for their present or future research use.2 Now, as Terry Cook writes, the focus of appraisal has shifted, in the main, “from the actual record to the conceptual context of its creation, from the physical to the intel- lectual, from matter to mind.”3 Macro-appraisal theorists such as Cook advo- cate the selection of records for long-term preservation on the basis of an analysis and valuation of the context of records creation over and above an examination of the actual records themselves.4 This shift in focus from content to context forces the archivist to come to a much clearer understanding of records’ origins and of the evidentially critical features surrounding their cre- ation. Since, in many cases, records are created in organizational contexts (rather than, for example, by individuals or families), it seems logical to assume that research and writing on organizations might have something to say in answer to the appraisal question.5 In fact, it already has. Archivists have been deeply influenced, much of the time quite unconsciously, by Max Weber’s theories, which characterize organi- zations in terms of the authority relations within them.6 Weber’s rational-legal organization with its bureaucratic form, wherein highly specialized tasks are coordinated by clearly defined and hierarchical lines of authority operating according to formal rules and procedures, until recently formed the basis, and limits, of archival understanding of the context of records creation. It also has shaped approaches to appraisal, as evidenced by the widely held view that records at the top of the administrative hierarchy are more valuable than those at the bottom. However, over time this model has become increasingly difficult for archivists to reconcile with the complexity of contemporary organizational realities.7 Modern organizations, for example, are increasingly non-hierarchi- cal, fluid, and lacking in clearly-defined vertical lines of authority. Such orga- nizations simply do not fit the Weberian mold. A number of archivists have been questioning the validity of applying a principle of provenance rooted in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century Weberian model to present day organizational settings. Archivists have been developing alternative constructs, drawing upon the writings of new social and organizational theorists. 36 Archivaria 46 Although he is not without his detractors, Mintzberg is still widely respected in the field of management and organizational theory.16 Why choose Mintzberg’s ideas to extend the boundaries of discourse on macro-appraisal theory and the ways in which the context of records creation is understood? Certainly there are many other writers in the areas of social and organizational theory whose work has interesting archival possibilities.17 In focusing on Mintzberg, it is not meant to suggest that archivists should not explore the archival implications of other authors’ work. The hope is that they will do so and, from incorporating relevant ideas, create a new synthesis to enrich the body of archival theory. Nevertheless, this article singles out Mintz- berg’s work as an example of how archivists can utilize contemporary organi- zational theory, first of all, because he is a well-respected organizational theorist in his own right. Secondly, his ideas on organizational configuration and design provide a particularly solid foundation from which to advance archival dialogue on macro-appraisal theory. They do so largely because they constitute a comprehensive synthesis of the leading theories on organizations drawn from political, economic, and social literature up to and including the late 1980s and because they are firmly rooted in the neo-functionalist socio- logical mainstream. This article argues that there are three major ways in which archivists can use Mintzberg’s ideas to provide a more sophisticated theoretical framework for understanding the context of creation, and, by extension, in refining macro-appraisal criteria for identifying and ranking organizational units according to their importance as creators and custodians of archival records. First, Mintzberg’s seven organizational configurations transcend the theo- retical limitations of models which conceptualize organizational structure solely in the Weberian sense, that is, in terms of neat and tidy hierarchical lines of authority. Mintzberg recognizes that transactional communication in organizations does not necessarily flow according to administrative structure. Thus, his ideas provide potential answers to critical questions about current theoretical constructs in archival thinking concerning context of creation such as those posed by Richard Brown in his article on macro-appraisal theory and the context of the public records creator. Brown asks, first of all, “If the cre- ator site is endowed with record-keeping accountability for particular func- tions or transactions within an institution, is this necessarily the site from which archives will acquire the records to meet archival accountability?” Sec- ondly, Brown asks, “Are there other accountability sites or locations within institutional structures with processive-functional linkages to prime business transactions, often without recognized official status, but which nevertheless ought to be considered and in some way documented by archivists?”18 A second major advantage of using Mintzberg’s ideas in archival appraisal is that they recognize that not every organization has the same structure; some are very “structured,” while others seem to have almost no structure in the tra- Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 37 ditional Weberian sense. Furthermore, as David Bearman points out, the par- ticular culture of each organization and their individual cultural contexts influence the interplay of structure, function, processes, and records.19 While archivists acknowledge that each organization is unique and have come to accept that organizations are more administratively complex than the Webe- rian model, many still understand context of creation in terms of one, usually Weberian, model of the organization – albeit with slight variations on the theme drawn from what can be termed ‘neo-Weberian’ thinking. Mintzberg offers seven basic organizational archetypes, most quite different from the Weberian model, while allowing for individual variations arising from various factors such as the organization’s particular culture and its broader cultural context. Thirdly, his concept of organizational structure is not structural in the clas- sical sense, but functional. Mintzberg is essentially concerned with how orga- nizations work (or function), because, as a specialist in management theory, he is aiming to prescribe effective organizational designs. In the classical sense, structure refers to administrative structure, to the organizational unit responsi- ble, for example, for the creation and maintenance of a given set of records. Mintzberg instead uses the term structure in a neo-functionalist sense, that is, as the various components of an organizational system fitted together to achieve system functionality. It is in using Mintzberg’s ideas on how the struc- tural components of an organizational system function, as opposed to focus- sing on what the organization specifically does (such as the particular type of health services that a hospital may provide), that archivists gain a powerful analytical tool for identifying and prioritizing sites for archivally significant records. This paper now turns to an exploration of Mintzberg’s ideas to elabo- rate further on these points. Mintzberg’s Theories On Organizational Configuration According to Mintzberg, “Every organized human activity – from the making of pottery to the placing of a man on the moon – gives rise to two fundamental and opposing requirements: the division of labour into various tasks to be per- formed and the coordination of those tasks to accomplish the activity.”20 Structure is simply the way in which an organization divides labour into dis- tinct tasks and achieves coordination of these tasks.21 According to Henry Mintzberg, organizations have only a few basic structures or configurations. These are identified by how key organizational attributes – such as organiza- tions’ component parts, the mechanisms they use to coordinate their work, the elements of their organizational design, their power systems, and their exter- nal environment – interrelate in various ways as parts of the total organiza- tional system. Mintzberg’s seven basic organizational configurations are: 1) the entrepreneurial, 2) the machine, 3) the diversified, 4) the professional, 38 Archivaria 46 5) the innovative, 6) the missionary, and 7) the political. Configuration, Mint- zberg argues, is necessary for organizations to achieve stability in their inter- nal characteristics, create synergy in their work processes, and establish a fit with their external environment. As well, argues Mintzberg, an understanding of the dynamics of configuration is essential to those seeking a better under- standing of organizations. Before turning to a detailed discussion of the seven basic configurations and hypotheses relating to appraisal, an overview of what Mintzberg identifies as the basic organizational building blocks, or attributes, is in order. These are 1) the parts and people of an organization, 2) its coordinating mechanisms, 3) its design parameters, and 4) the various environmental factors influencing the choice of design parameters. Parts and People To Mintzberg, an organization is made up of • an operating core, meaning those individuals who perform the basic work of producing products and providing services (in other words, operational staff); • a strategic apex, meaning the one or more full-time managers who oversee the entire system (in short, senior management); • a middle line – in more complex organizations, managers of operational staff and managers of managers, both of whom create a hierarchy of author- ity between the operating core and the strategic apex; • a technostructure – in still more complex organizations, a group of analysts who plan and control the work of others; • support staff – a group of individuals who provide internal services, such as a mailroom, legal counsel, or public relations office; and • ideology, or culture, which encompasses the traditions and beliefs of an organization that distinguish it from other organizations.22 The employees who work for the organization form its internal coalition, while those persons or agencies outside the organization that have dealings with it form its external coalition.23 Both groups exert influences upon the organization, its decisions, and actions. In each of Mintzberg’s configurations, a number of internal and environmental needs determine that one particular part of the organization will become dominant. Coordinating Mechanisms One of the primary needs of all, especially more complex organizations, is to coordinate their work. Mintzberg advances a number of fundamental ways Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 41 on. Mintzberg observes that particular structures seem to carry through to new periods, an important consideration for archivists carrying out appraisal.27 Mintzberg contends that the technical system, meaning the instruments used in the operating core to produce outputs, also affects design in the fol- lowing ways: • The more regulating the technical characteristics of the system of produc- tion are (that is, the more systematic the controls over the work of the oper- ators) the more formalized the operating work becomes – a factor which, in turn, lends itself to creating a more bureaucratic structure in the operating core. For example, technical systems like assembly lines create highly specialized and formalized work because of their routine and predictability, which in turn give rise to a bureaucratic operating core. • The more complex the technical system is, the more elaborate and profes- sional the support staff becomes. • Finally, the automation of the operating core transforms a bureaucratic administrative structure into an innovative entity because the focal point of control shifts from people to machines.28 The organization’s external environment affects design as well. Mintzberg maintains that: • The more dynamic an organization’s environment, the more fluid is its structure. A dynamic environment might be defined as one characterized by the need for frequent product change, high labour turnover, or unstable political conditions. These conditions necessitate a certain level of organi- zational fluidity that cannot be achieved with bureaucratization.29 • The more complex an organization’s environment is, the more decentralized its structure becomes. When the environment is complex, so, too, will be the knowledge required to respond to that environment. The more complex that knowledge becomes, the less likely is it that it can be comprehended by one person or even a few. Hence, organizations must be decentralized, along with decision-making power. • The more diversified an organization’s markets become, the greater the pro- pensity becomes to split the organization into market-based units, or divi- sions, given favourable economies of scale. • Lastly, extreme hostility in its environment drives any organization to cen- tralize its structure temporarily.30 Finally, Mintzberg contends that power determines organizational design: 42 Archivaria 46 • The greater the external control of an organization (for example, by a parent firm or government agency) the more centralized and formalized is its structure. • A divided external coalition will give rise to a politicized internal coalition, and visa versa. • Finally, fashion favours the structure of the day (and of the culture), some- times even when not appropriate.31 All of these factors combine to form one of seven basic configurations when influenced in a particular way by the “pulls” (to use Mintzberg’s terminology) which the different parts of an organization exert. Mintzberg explains the different “pulls” in the following way. The strategic apex, argues Mintzberg, exerts a pull to lead, maintaining control by direct supervision and through a highly centralized structure. This pull results in the creation of the entrepreneurial configuration. The influence of the techno- structure exerts a pull to rationalize, encouraging only limited horizontal decentralization and resulting in the machine configuration. The diversified configuration is the result when middle managers exert a pull to balkanize, that is, to concentrate power in their units. The operating core’s desire to pro- fessionalize in order to lessen competing influences results in the professional configuration. Organizations that need to innovate are usually dominated by support staff exerting a pull to collaborate in order to involve themselves more actively in core functions, with support (legal counsel or public relations staff) and operational staff merging into multidisciplinary teams of experts. Ideol- ogy influences the organization to pull together through the standardization of norms to create a missionary type organization. Finally, politics also exists in organizations and can pull them apart. When this pull dominates, the configu- ration is political.32 This brief synopsis of Mintzberg’s theory of organizational configuration should indicate how his ideas offer a richer conceptualization of the context of records creation than early Weberian or later neo-Weberian constructs. While Mintzberg acknowledges the continuing existence of organizations whose structures are in keeping with traditional Weberian bureaucracy – those with machine configurations – he also constructs six additional types. In emphasiz- ing, in addition, ideology as one of the main attributes of organizations and the external environment as one of the primary factors affecting design parame- ters, Mintzberg accounts for the influence of social and organization-specific culture on organizational configuration. It might further be said of Mintzberg’s theory of organizational configuration, that in recognizing the effect of the external environment on organizational design parameters and including notions of internal and external organizational coalitions, it offers the archivist a means to help place the ideas behind documentation strategy into effect by Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 43 providing a framework for mapping linkages between the organization and related features of the external environment. Moreover, implicit in Mintzberg’s concepts is the idea that the flow of orga- nizational information does not necessarily follow administrative structure (what Mintzberg refers to as unit groupings). For example, Mintzberg asserts that coordination of work in both very simple and very complex organizations occurs largely by means of mutual adjustment, that is, the act of two or more employees communicating with one another. In more complex organizations, such as those exhibiting the innovative configuration, Mintzberg indicates that the dominant flow of communication is not vertical, as in the traditional bureaucracy, but horizontal between unit groups. In answer to the questions posed by Richard Brown, cited earlier, Mintzberg’s theoretical construct sug- gests that the creator site endowed with accountability for record-keeping for particular functions or transactions will not necessarily be the site from which archivists will acquire the records required to meet their archival responsibili- ties. There will be other sites involved in the same transactions that will not normally be recognized as having the primary or official responsibility for the Configuration Prime Key Part of Type of Coordinating Organization Decentralization Mechanism Entrepreneurial Direct Strategic apex Vertical and supervision horizontal Machine Standardization Technostructure Limited of work processes horizontal Professional Standardization Operating core Horizontal of skills decentralization Diversified Standardization Middle line Limited vertical of outputs decentralization Innovative Mutual adjustment Support staff Selected decentralization Missionary Standardization Ideology Decentralization of norms Political None None Varies Figure One: Mintzberg’s Seven Organizational Configurations and Their Defining Characteristics33 46 Archivaria 46 of more or less valuable information towards the context of its creation, the latest macro-appraisal thinking points to an additional shift. This is moving away from appraising records by an evaluation of their creators’ business functions to an appraisal based on an evaluation of creators’ functionality in the systems sense – that is, in terms of how the organization functions or works as opposed to what the organization does (its business functions). For example, while Helen Samuels’ method of Institutional Functional Analysis concentrates on assessing the various functions and activities of an organiza- tion, Terry Cook’s macro-appraisal theory and methodology draws upon Anthony Giddens’ Structuration Theory, which instead deals with the means by which organizational processes take shape, to identify the best location within different organizations to find documentation of its defining activities and ideas. Thus, Cook’s theory and method is as much concerned with how an organization functions (its functionality) as with what functions it per- forms.35 In a related vein, Frank Upward, in a recent work on the records continuum (which also draws upon the work of Giddens) challenges archi- vists to shift the focus of their work away from a concentration on objects (the records) onto processes (of records creation).36 Although Upward does not deal explicitly with appraisal, the implications of his argument suggest that archivists should be evaluating not the “what” (the objects) but the “how” (the processes) of function. In other words, it is the means, or the pro- cesses by which organizations perform their functions, that have become important, not the ends, or the functions in themselves. Mintzberg’s ideas complement and extend the ideas of these archivists. His seven configura- tions are explicitly based, similarly, on the processes by which organiza- tions, as entities, function and, in so doing, supply the archivist with a rich conceptual framework to identify important sites of records creation. It is in this sense that Mintzberg’s theory has the potential to serve as the basis for a new approach to appraisal wherein, faced with appraising a particular organi- zation’s records, the archivist identifies the appropriate organizational config- uration and then selects for preservation those records series that are critical to how it functions. The approach to appraisal presented in this article relies, of course, on hypotheses about the interrelationship between organizations of the type described in each of Mintzberg’s seven basic configurations and the records creation and keeping practices of those organizations. This subject is not addressed directly by Mintzberg, as he is not concerned with the problems of archivists. Still, his descriptions of the seven basic organizational configura- tions provide enough clues about the records and record-keeping associated with each configuration that a number of hypotheses may in fact be formu- lated upon which appraisal decisions may be based. These clues include the types of records likely to be generated by each class of organization, those that might be considered most critical to an organization’s operations, their loca- Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 47 tion within the organization, and the ways in which they might be created and maintained. It is now appropriate to turn to examining each of Mintzberg’s configura- tions in turn in greater detail with a view to exploring their implications for records creation and keeping and, hence, for archival appraisal. A brief sum- mary of each configuration will be now presented, followed by a number of hypotheses about records creation, keeping, and appraisal. The Entrepreneurial Organization The entrepreneurial organization is characterized, according to Mintzberg, by a simple, informal, and flexible structure with little staff or middle-line hierar- chy. The focal point of such organizations is their chief executive or leader, with whom most or all of the organization’s knowledge and power rests. The leaders of entrepreneurial organizations coordinate work by means of direct supervision, often eschewing professional advice or ideologies not in accord with their personal philosophies. According to Mintzberg, leaders of these types of organizations are individuals with strong personalities to whom pro- fessional advice or ideologies contrary to their own personal vision can seem like a challenge. Mintzberg points out that it is, in fact, not uncommon to find all employees in an entrepreneurial organization reporting to the chief execu- tive. Decision-making about strategy and operations is, of course, also concen- trated at the organization’s strategic apex. In fact, leaders of entrepreneurial organizations tend to become intimately involved in details of the organiza- tion’s operations, because they depend upon this knowledge to formulate strat- egy. Innovating, and handling disturbances, are the primary functions of the leader in an entrepreneurial organization.37 This configuration is found set in external environments that are both sim- ple and dynamic such as food retailing (as opposed to aircraft design). The simple environment fosters a situation in which one person at the top of the organization is able to retain a great deal of influence, and a dynamic environ- ment gives the entrepreneurial organization’s fluid, flexible decision-making and structure the edge over larger bureaucracies. An automobile dealership with a strong owner, a new government department, and a corporation or nation run by an autocratic leader all offer examples of entrepreneurial organi- zations. Entrepreneurial organizations tend to emerge when an organization is young; thus, most organizations will pass through an entrepreneurial stage, even if they do not remain in this configuration for long periods. This configu- ration may also manifest itself if the leader hoards power or is “placed on a pedestal” by members of the organization. Entrepreneurial organizations also tend to emerge when an organization is faced with a crisis and its members turn to strong leadership for survival. In Mintzberg’s opinion, the entrepre- neurial configuration probably saw its heyday in the era of the great American 48 Archivaria 46 trusts of the late nineteenth century, when powerful entrepreneurs controlled huge empires (for example, in the days of the Robber Barons).38 So what of records creation and keeping in organizations that fit the entre- preneurial configuration? Relying on Mintzberg’s descriptions of such organi- zations, we may conclude that record-keeping is likely to be informal and highly personalized with important records series created and maintained at the strategic apex, that is, in the office of a chief executive or leader. Thus, we may conclude that, with organizations conforming to the entrepreneurial type, the common practice in appraisal of retaining records from top levels of the organizational hierarchy is appropriate. Moreover, the records we are likely to find will document strategy (although not likely as well articulated as when a formal planning process exists), decision-making, and organizational opera- tion, in particular as it concerns the implementation of new strategies. As well (given that most organizations pass through an entrepreneurial stage), when looking beyond entrepreneurial organizations to other present-day organiza- tions we may need to pay particular attention to records which were created in the early years of organizational formation and located in strategic apexes. Similarly, if the external environment or conditions are such that the organiza- tion is likely to again take on an entrepreneurial configuration (for example, in times of crisis), we again need to look closely at records located in the strate- gic apex. The Machine Organization The machine configuration is typified by the modern bureaucracy, character- ized by centralization, formal procedures governing routine operating tasks, specialized work, sharp divisions of labour (usually into functional group- ings), and extensive hierarchy. Because operating tasks are simple and repeti- tive in this type of organization, they are often controlled and coordinated through standardization. To achieve high levels of work standardization, the administrative structures of machine organizations are well articulated. In par- ticular, they exhibit a fully developed middle line hierarchy and technostruc- ture. The technostructure in machine organizations consists of a multitude of staff analysts responsible for standardizing work. Thus, in machine organiza- tions, it is not uncommon to find large quantities of policies, procedures, rules, standards, guidelines, and other documents all geared towards standardization of processes. According to Mintzberg, middle-line managers within the machine configuration have three important tasks: 1) to handle disturbances that arise from the operating core (which occur frequently because many non- standard cases cannot be dealt with according to existing standards); 2) to work with the staff analysts constituting the technostructure to incorporate standards into operating units; and 3) to support vertical flows of information within the organization – for example, of action plans flowing down the hier- Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 51 external environment, such as membership in cartels, acquisitions of new com- panies, or operation of particular administrative functions (such as those pro- vided by legal departments). These series should be preserved to document the ways in which the organization functioned as a closed system. Finally, given the machine organization’s general propensity to centralize, we might expect that record-keeping will be more consolidated, with perhaps one or more cen- tral filing rooms or registries serving more than one unit. The Diversified Configuration As Mintzberg explains, the diversified configuration is essentially a group of semi-autonomous units, often called divisions, held together by a central administrative core, such as a headquarters. This is a configuration often found in the private sector among Fortune 500 enterprises and in large govern- ment bureaucracies. These configurations usually have evolved from organiza- tions that originally had a more unified functional structure. In its purest form, each unit of the diversified organization serves a distinct market or area, has control over its own operating functions, and more or less follows the machine configuration internally. The role of the central administrative core is to con- trol performance through measurable standards of output, such as return on investment, growth in sales, or some other, usually financial, measure. Certain important functions will remain in the headquarters. The headquar- ters develops overall corporate strategy, including definition of the products or services which the organization will produce. It establishes, acquires, divests, or closes units as it sees fit. It transfers funds between units to maintain inter- nal financial stability. It operates a strict performance control system, needed to control and coordinate the organization’s work, and it often provides sup- port services, such as corporate public relations or legal counsel. Mintzberg observes that when market diversity rests on clients or region as opposed to the provision of a unique product or service, “divisionalization” may be incomplete, in which case the headquarters may retain control of certain cru- cial functions in order to ensure common operating standards for all divisions. For example, one study found that insurance companies concentrate their crit- ical investment functions at headquarters.43 The diversified organization exists in both the private and public sectors. It often appears as a structural response to changing conditions within a machine organization that has diversified its markets or branched out from concentra- tion on particular products or services. Furthermore, as organizations grow in size, they are more inclined to adopt the diversified configuration, although size alone is not a determinant, according to Mintzberg. For example, central administrators within government, unable to control agencies and departments directly, will grant managers considerable autonomy, retaining accountability through strict performance measurement. Age is another factor in diversifica- 52 Archivaria 46 tion as, when faced with mature markets, organizations may respond by devel- oping new markets.44 Given the structure of a diversified configuration, we can expect to find a relatively centralized record-keeping system serving the headquarters as well as centralized record-keeping systems within each unit. The individual units will create and maintain records relating to their specific operations, while we can expect to find records at headquarters relating to strategy formulation, per- formance measurement, the movement of funds, and other centrally co-ordi- nated functions. If the organization has diversified by client groups or region, we may also find records at headquarters relating to a critical operational function – for example, investment records in an insurance company’s head office. From the standpoint of evidential value, the records series created and maintained by head office, particularly those created by its technical staff or by financial analysts relating to performance measures, will be worthy of pres- ervation. Since, according to Mintzberg, the individual units within a diversi- fied organization function much the same as the instrument type of machine organization, the appraisal hypotheses formulated for organizations of the instrument type will also apply to appraising the records of the various divi- sions within an organization having a diversified structure. The Professional Configuration Organizations conforming to the professional configuration also, like machine bureaucracies, control and coordinate work through standardization. However, in the case of these organizations, standardization is of the knowledge and skills of its employees, as opposed to operating procedures or outputs as in the machine bureaucracy. The knowledge and skills of professional employees become standardized through long years of university or other technical train- ing, an extended period of professional apprenticeship, or both. The training and other education that the professional receives is usually governed by a professional association that exerts external control over the profession and its professionals. Thus, in professional bureaucracies, the operating core of the organization, consisting of its professionals, is large. There are virtually no middle managers, as the professionals in such organizations perform relatively complex tasks quite autonomously, according to professional standards. Pro- fessional bureaucracies do, however, have fairly large support units, which serve the operating core, supporting the professionals’ activities. For example, universities have administrations, printing facilities, faculty clubs, publishing houses, archives, libraries, and computer facilities, as well as many other sup- port units. Often, as Mintzberg points out, the support units become machine- like “enclaves,” acting in contrast to the rather democratic mode of operation of the rest of the professional bureaucracy (unless of course they are also com- prised of professionals, as in the case of archives and libraries). Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 53 Because professional configurations are decentralized, professionals are not only involved in their professional work but also in the administrative deci- sions that affect them, for example, in promotions, hiring colleagues, and dis- tribution of resources. As these decisions require mutual adjustment and consensus among the various professionals involved, the professional bureau- cracy often has many administrative committees and task forces. Senior administrators in the professional bureaucracy handle conflicts within the organizational structure (for example, jurisdictional disputes between profes- sionals) and serve as the boundary between the organization’s professionals and outside influences such as government, clients, and organizational bene- factors. Thus, the administrators in professional bureaucracies will often become involved in matters of professional conduct and in liaison activities with external agencies that seek to influence the organization. These activities include negotiations, public relations, and fund raising.45 Organizations with structures that fit the professional configuration are common in universities, general hospitals, accounting firms, law firms, social work agencies, and certain organizations carrying out engineering or craft work where the work is sufficiently stable and well-defined to permit stan- dardization, yet complex enough that it must be carried out by professionals.46 Given Mintzberg’s description of the organization with a professional con- figuration, we may assume that records series generated at the operating core, that is with the professionals themselves, will likely have the greatest signifi- cance in terms of evidential value. Given that each professional performs his or her work fairly autonomously, we can expect that records creation will also be quite individualized and decentralized. What kinds of records might we expect the professional to create? Mintzberg’s description of this type of orga- nization suggests that its professionals will tend to generate large volumes of case files relating to their professional work. For example, a doctor can be expected to generate patient files, and a lawyer, client files. However, identify- ing archivally significant sites may be complicated by the fact that profes- sional bureaucracies generally have large administrative units to support the work of the professionals and, consequently, may have established a support unit to maintain the large volumes of case files generated by the organization’s professional employees. Additional complications arise owing to profession- als’ preference for working independently. As the professional configuration tends to encourage relatively autonomous and independent action, we may expect to find that professional employees do not transfer all relevant case information to the support unit charged with maintenance of case files, or that they maintain a duplicate set of case files in order to reduce their reliance on the support unit, or that they do both. This presents clear challenges for the archivist attempting to select records for archival preservation. In addition, professional employees will likely create and maintain records relating to research and publication or to involvement in outside professional activities 56 Archivaria 46 much the flavour of the moment. According to Mintzberg, “Every one of its characteristics is very much in vogue today: emphasis on expertise, organic structure, project teams, task forces, decentralization of power, matrix struc- ture, sophisticated technical systems, automation and young organizations. Thus, if the professional and diversified forms are yesterday’s configurations and the entrepreneurial and machine forms yet earlier configurations, then the innovative form is clearly today’s.”49 Mintzberg’s description of the innovative configuration gives us a picture of an organization geared towards invention and problem solving, which it accomplishes through ad hoc teams of experts. It will then be the records gen- erated as a result of the work of these teams that will be of greatest signifi- cance to the archivist seeking to document the activities of such organizations. But where will such project records be found in innovative organizations? Given the decentralized and organic structure of adhocracies, these are likely to be located with the project managers for each project. Thus, pockets of important project records may be discovered in operational or administrative units which consist, for housekeeping purposes, of same-discipline specialists and which operate as fluid pools of expertise from which potential project managers may be drawn. Records of functional and integrating managers will likely be more routine, less significant in terms of the organization’s primary objectives, and therefore less worthy of preservation, unless concerned with conflict resolution. The strategic apex’s records in this type of organization will, likewise, be less significant, although key evidential information should be sought out relating to dispute resolution, strategy formation, project acqui- sition or sales, and project management. Mintzberg notes that the formation of strategy in innovative organizations is not premeditated as it is in the more bureaucratic configurations, but takes place over time as the organization responds to its environment and until a particular pattern starts to emerge. Top management’s role, then, is to identify these emergent patterns and articulate them for the organization. Thus, we should not expect to find formal vision statements or strategic planning documents in the offices of senior executives of innovative organizations. While identification of precise forms will require further study, documentation relating to strategy formulation, such as issue papers or trend analyses, is likely to be more amorphous. Finally, within those organizations falling within the administrative adhocracy type, we might expect to find records relating to the contracting out or divestment of operat- ing functions to independent agencies. These records should be preserved for their evidential value.50 The Missionary Configuration As Mintzberg explains, all organizations have an ideological component; how- ever, in the missionary organization, ideology serves as the prime means for Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 57 coordinating work, achieving control through standardization of norms (there- fore, qualifying as a bureaucracy). As a result there tend to be few formal rules and regulations in the missionary organization. Standardization of norms in missionary structures occurs in a number of ways: because members who identify with the organization’s values are naturally drawn to it; through selec- tion of new members who “fit” the organizational mold; through processes of socialization and indoctrination; or through a punishment and reward system that encourages members to conform to the ideology. In most organizations of this type, there exist rich traditions that manifest themselves in the form of sagas and tales about the organization and its members, and a unique history. The work of such organizations typically is very clear, focussed, inspiring, and distinctive, all of these characteristics providing the preconditions for the emergence of a strong ideology with which organizational members can readily identify. Decision-making, power, and information are equally shared in a missionary organization; in fact, Mintzberg points out that these are the most decentralized types of organizations, usually ending up rather amor- phous in structure with little distinction between the organization’s various levels. The role of the strategic apex within such organizations (meaning its leaders, inasmuch as they can actually be differentiated from the other mem- bers of the organization), is not so much direction as the protection and enhancement of organizational ideology. Mintzberg describes several different forms that missionary organizations may take: 1) as “reformers,” or those that set out to change their external environment; 2) as “converters,” or those that seek to draw new members in from the external environment; and 3) as “clois- ters,” or those that seek to operate as closed systems, shutting themselves off from their external environments. The missionary configuration, according to Mintzberg, is a difficult type of structure to maintain, there being many ways in which the external environment can dilute the ideology that forms the glue holding the organization together. Examples of missionary organizations given by Mintzberg include the traditional Israeli kibbutz and the Foundation for Infant Paralysis that runs the March of Dimes Campaign.51 What can we conclude from Mintzberg’s description of this organizational form about records creation, keeping, and appraisal as they concern the mis- sionary type of organization? Clearly, records relating to the development, definition, and dissemination of the organization’s belief system – its prime coordinating mechanism – will have significant evidential value. We may expect to find such records at the organization’s strategic apex, as its leaders serve as the important means of protecting and enhancing its ideology. How- ever, we must also look to the key ways in which the organization maintains control and coordinates work through standardization of norms, that is, through selection criteria for employees, through methods of socialization and indoctrination, and through employee reward systems. Thus, records docu- menting the selection and induction of new personnel, such as those that might 58 Archivaria 46 be found in a personnel department, take on special importance in such orga- nizations. Not only may we want to preserve records documenting the basis on which employees have been selected, we may also wish to save vehicles of internal communication (such as corporate magazines) and records document- ing training courses and employee induction into the organization. These types of records will also reveal the organization’s methods of implementing reward systems and selecting, socializing, and indoctrinating staff. Of course, missionary organizations tend to form when there is a clear and focused orga- nizational mission; thus, records documenting how the organization’s mem- bers implement this mission should also be preserved, as these will reveal the way in which the organization’s ideology manifested itself in a practical sense. For example, if appraising the records of a missionary organization of the reformer variety, we would want to look for, select, and preserve records series documenting programs that seek to influence or change the organiza- tion’s external environment. For example, if appraising the records of the Church of Latter Day Saints, the archivist would want to look for records doc- umenting the particular programs by which the Church seeks to spread its message (for example, sending missionaries door-to-door). The Political Configuration Mintzberg’s final configuration is one he calls political, a type that is rarely found in its pure form. Like ideology, politics can come to have an influence on any organization – on some, like professional or innovative organizations, more than others. However, in certain organizations, politics dominates, even if for only a short while. According to Mintzberg, such organizations are best described in terms of power, not structure, and by power which is exercised in alegitimate ways (for example, not by means of authority, ideology, or exper- tise). In a political organization, there is no preferred method of coordination, no single dominant part of the organization, and no clear centralization or decentralization. The structure of this type of organization depends on the locus of power. Mintzberg delineates four main types of political configura- tions: • confrontation, characterized by conflict that is intense, confined, and brief (this type of configuration typically emerging in a takeover situation, where new management seizes control of a new acquisition); • shaky alliance, characterized by conflict that is moderate, confined, and possibly enduring (this configuration tending to emerge when two or more major systems of influence or centres of power must coexist in approximate equal balance); • politicized organization, characterized by conflict that is moderate, perva- sive, and possibly enduring (this configuration often emerging in public Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 61 driving them eventually toward the political configuration. In the absence of renewal or some form of artificial support, a political configuration eventu- ally leads to the demise of the organization. • Renewal Organizational renewal may take place in the form of gradual revitalization (during maturity) or, in the absence of that, dramatic turnaround (during decline). According to Mintzberg, the process of revitalization does not change the existing configuration of an organization; it merely stimulates necessary change through infusion of a mixture of politics and ideology. Turnaround, on the other hand, often involves temporary reversion to the entrepreneurial form to allow a forceful leader with vision to resolve the cri- sis, although Mintzberg is not optimistic about the possibility of true turn- around, seeing these initiatives as palliative and not resulting in any lasting change in organizational configuration.54 If we accept Mintzberg’s theory that organizations naturally change their configurations over time according to a relatively set pattern, it follows that archivists must not appraise the records of organizations using one set of uni- fied criteria, but instead apply the criteria appropriate to the particular stage or stages in the organization’s life cycle during which the series in question were formed. The archivist may make this determination by researching and moni- toring strategic and significant changes in the relative size and significance of the organization’s component parts, in the characteristics of its design parame- ters, its method of work coordination, or its external environment. For exam- ple, in the case of an organization shifting from an innovative to professional configuration, noteworthy changes might include a gradual decline in the number of project teams and rise in the significance of same-discipline units and administrative committees. Testing the Theory: Two Case Studies Mintzberg’s seven configurations are ideal types; and Mintzberg readily admits that reality is much more complex and varied. Organizations may not manifest themselves in their pure forms, but exist in combinations of two or more of the configurations at a time, contain organizational units or other pockets of activity with configurations that differ from the organization’s pre- dominant form, and convert to new forms over time naturally or when subject to external pressures. As Mintzberg himself admits, “In one sense, these con- figurations do not exist at all. After all, they are mere words and pictures on pieces of paper, not reality itself ... every theory necessarily simplifies and therefore distorts reality.”55 Nevertheless, conceptual schemes and archetypes of the variety presented by Mintzberg offer us important ways of seeing and 62 Archivaria 46 interpreting reality. A look at this reality from different sets of perspectives, therefore, will assist us in making a preliminary evaluation of the validity of appraisal hypotheses formulated using Mintzberg’s configuration theory. They will also offer an early indication of how the results of an appraisal derived from Mintzberg’s theory are likely to compare with the results of other approaches to appraisal. Two case studies in appraisal have been chosen for this purpose: Helen Willa Samuels’ study of the records of colleges and universities and JoAnne Yates’ study of the communication systems of three typical American busi- ness structures. Why choose the work of Samuels and Yates in particular when there exist any number of excellent case studies from which to choose? Cer- tainly, Barbara Craig’s study of hospital records and record-keeping, Cathe- rine Bailey’s case study analyzing macro-appraisal, or Jean-Stéphen Piché’s study of Government of Canada real property records could equally have been chosen.56 As in the choice of Henry Mintzberg over other organizational or social theorists, the selection of Samuels and Yates is not meant to ascribe any greater significance or utility to their work over the work of others. It is simply that limitations of time and space prevent exploration and analysis of other case studies. Nevertheless, such analysis of the findings from additional authors would be most useful in further testing the hypotheses arising from Mintzberg’s ideas and in developing new propositions. However, that being said, Helen Samuels’ study of colleges and universities especially recom- mends itself because Samuels is a well-respected archivist whose analysis of the appraisal implications of organizational functions is seminal. As well, col- leges and universities, the foci of Samuels’ study, unequivocally fit Mintz- berg’s model of the professional bureaucracy, making her work a convenient point of comparison. Similarly, JoAnne Yates’ study of communication sys- tems in typical American businesses is also well-respected and widely acclaimed. Moreover, the types of businesses that Yates’ has studied again provide a convenient point of comparison with Mintzberg’s configurations, namely, the entrepreneurial, machine, and diversified forms. What follows is a discussion of Samuels’ and Yates’ studies in relation to the Mintzberg-based hypotheses regarding professional, entrepreneurial, machine, and diversified configurations introduced earlier. Case One: Helen Willa Samuels In 1992, Helen Willa Samuels’ book, Varsity Letters, was published.57 In this book, Samuels uses a method she calls “institutional functional analysis” to gain a thorough understanding of a particular type of institution: colleges and universities. She argues this approach is essential for determining the types of records that need to be collected and preserved, or in some cases created, to document the activities of such institutions adequately. Samuels’ study identi- Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 63 fies seven basic functions of colleges and universities – to confer credentials, convey knowledge, foster socialization, conduct research, sustain the institu- tion, provide public service, and promote culture – then discusses the various types of documentation, and documentary problems, arising from perfor- mance of these functions. Samuels’ study paints a clear picture of a classic Mintzberg configuration – the professional bureaucracy – and the ways in which records are created and kept in this type of organization. As such, it offers information basic for a preliminary assessment of the appraisal hypoth- eses formulated for this configuration as well as for comparing the results of appraisal based on Mintzberg’s theory with appraisal carried out by means of Samuels’ institutional functional analysis. Samuels’ analysis places the emphasis not, as Mintzberg’s theory allows us to do, on the mechanisms by which colleges and universities function as organizations (for example, through work coordination achieved through standardization), but on the actual functions which these types of institutions perform. Samuel’s study bears out the notion that the operating core (that is, profes- sionals) in professional bureaucracies tend to generate large volumes of case files relating to their work.58 As earlier hypothesized, much record creation and keeping in the professional bureaucracy is quite individualized and decen- tralized. As evidence of this, we may refer to Samuels’ observation that “offi- cial student records are created and maintained by many offices: admissions, registrar, dean of students, bursar, employment, medical and others.” “Addi- tionally,” she notes, “academic records are created and maintained by depart- mental offices, instructors, and advisors.”59 In fact, Samuels generally characterizes student record-keeping in colleges and universities as being dis- persed, with records frequently duplicated in different locations. As a result, observes Samuels, maintaining one coherent set of student information is a challenge. Nevertheless, support for the hypothesis that large volumes of case files generated by the organization’s professional employees will often be maintained by a central administrative unit is at least implicit in Samuels’ description of record-keeping practices for documentation relating to student admissions and permanent academic records, as well as in her related recom- mendations. According to Samuels: Some institutions, such as Harvard University, make the application folder part of the permanent student record that is eventually stored in the archives. At the other institu- tions the officer in charge of students (for example, dean of students) or the student’s major department retains part or all of the file, but eventually it will be destroyed. The overwhelming volume of this material may force larger institutions to destroy these records, but in most cases the essential data are transferred to permanent aca- demic records. Archivists should assist admissions and academic officers to deter- mine if all or a selected portion of the file should be retained. Then, to prevent the dispersal and possible loss of the record, the selected admissions materials should 66 Archivaria 46 served. Here again, Samuels’ study suggests that the theory matches reality. For example, in discussing the process of curriculum development at colleges and universities, she observes that organizations such as the American Chemi- cal Society and the American Psychological Association have a direct impact on academic curricula, as they specify the knowledge and skills needed to qualify within the professions to which the associations are connected.65 Moreover, she says, “when educational requirements are established and enforced by a consensus of the members of a professional organization, the faculty impose these needs through their role in influencing and formulating the curriculum at their own academic institutions.”66 As a result, it seems log- ical to expect to find documentary evidence within the operating core of the relation between the organization’s professionals and their professional asso- ciations – and, in fact, to seek this documentation out. Mintzberg’s theory led to the conclusion that in the professional bureau- cracy, administrative committees and task forces play a key role in the coordi- nation of work; hence, we can expect to find agendas, minutes, and papers of such committees and task forces within these organizations. Once more, Sam- uels’ study offers validation for the hypothesis. About university government, she writes: In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, governance of colleges and universities was carried out largely by the president and the board. During the twentieth century, however, there has been a diffusion of decision-making: faculty, students, and staff par- ticipate through their representative bodies, administrative and academic positions, and standing and ad hoc committees.67 As Samuels observes, agendas, papers, minutes, and correspondence abound related to the various standing and ad hoc committees found in colleges and universities and, because they document formative organizational policies and decisions, should be preserved. As noted, organizations sometimes exist in combinations of two or more of Mintzberg’s configurations at a time, contain organizational units or pockets of activity with configurations that differ from the organization’s predominant form, or convert to new forms over time naturally or when subject to external pressures. This observation is consistent with Samuels’ description of the research function in colleges and universities, a function which supports Mint- zberg’s theory that organizations conforming to a particular configuration may also contain one or more units consistent with another type of configuration. One example is a research team, an innovative configuration operating in the midst of a professional bureaucracy. Of the research function, Samuels writes: Collaborative or team research is increasingly accepted as an effective means to assemble the diverse knowledge, skills, and manpower required to address complex Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 67 problems . . . Members of a research team can be colleagues at the same institution or individuals from many academic campuses, or even from government and industry.68 Samuels continues: For collaborative research of all kinds and the majority of scientific and technological efforts, project leaders work as part of a multi-layered team comprising researchers, administrators, and technical assistants. The research staff is made up of graduate stu- dents, postdoctoral fellows, and research assistants, who are directed by the team lead- ers in the assembly and analysis of data. Technical assistance is often required to program and run computers or to build and operate other equipment. Administrative and secretarial staff manage financial, personnel, and reporting requirements as well as document preparation.69 Thus, Samuels’ description of the research function matches Mintzberg’s description of the operating adhocracy, in which innovative work is carried out by multidisciplinary teams of both operational and administrative staff. Her analysis of records creation, keeping, and appraisal as it relates to this univer- sity function offers a useful point of comparison with the appraisal hypotheses put forward for the innovative configuration. One conclusion arrived at on the basis of Mintzberg’s theory is that it will be the records generated as a result of the work of ad hoc project teams that will be of greatest significance to the archivist seeking to document the activities of innovative organizations, a con- clusion drawn by Samuels as well. Further, given the decentralized and organic structure of adhocracies, project records are likely to be found with the project managers for each project. However, if not found among the records of academics who served as managers of a research project, pockets of important project records may be discovered in functional units combining same-discipline specialists (for example, a faculty or department office). Sam- uels observes that the dispersal of research documentation is a particular prob- lem for archivists seeking to document this function, noting that the problem is caused by the nature of research work, that often necessitates several researchers working in many locations. Some research records are therefore to be found in personal and professional files maintained in individuals’ offices and homes, while others will be found at the laboratories and centres where projects are carried out.70 Thus, on the basis of Samuels’ observations, we may conclude that record-keeping in innovative organizations may be even more decentralized than originally hypothesized, in that project managers may not keep a complete record of the project; rather, the archivist may expect to find bits and pieces of documentation on the research project in records cre- ated and maintained by each individual researcher or project team member. In light of Samuels’ findings, the original hypothesis about record-keeping in the innovative organization and the location of archivally significant records for 68 Archivaria 46 appraisal purposes, needs some revision to take account of the more dispersed nature of record-keeping in these configurations. No support exists in Samuels’ study for the hypothesis that records relating to dispute resolution, strategy formation, project management, and project acquisition or sales will be found at the strategic apex. However, as colleges and universities as a whole are not innovative organizations (though contain- ing such elements), but are instead professional bureaucracies, we might con- clude that the pattern of record creation and keeping relating to such activities may be more consistent with the structure of professional bureaucracies than innovative organizations (for example, functions and activities being carried out independently by professional specialists). It remains to be seen if the hypothesis can be substantiated by a case study centring on a purely innova- tive organization. Nevertheless, turning again to project work within colleges and universities, Samuels’ research supports, to a point, the conclusion that the formation of strategy in innovative organizations is not premeditated, as it is in the more bureaucratic configurations. It instead takes place over time as the organiza- tion responds to its environment and until a particular pattern starts to emerge, with top management’s role being the identification and articulation of these emergent patterns. In respect to development of research plans (which can be construed as a form of strategy formation) she writes that: Little evidence may exist of the formulation of the research plan, the design of equip- ment and techniques used, the chronological sequence of the work, and the process of analysis and interpretation. If the researcher applied for funds to support the work, the application might contain evidence of the questions, rationale, and methods, while progress reports to funding agencies and working papers trace the accomplishments. Without records associated with the receipt of funding, documenting these activities is more difficult.71 Thus, Samuels’ study lends support to the conclusion, based on Mintzberg’s configuration theory, that in organizations of the innovative variety we should not expect to find formal vision statements or strategic planning documents in the offices of senior executives, of which the project leaders here are equiva- lents. Case Two: JoAnne Yates Like Samuels’ study, JoAnne Yates’ analysis of internal communications sys- tems in American business structures offers valuable information about records creation, keeping, and appraisal through which the conclusions about appraisal which arise from Mintzberg’s theory can be assessed. In a 1985 arti- cle in the American Archivist Yates examined the communication systems Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 71 description of the functions performed by administrative staff such as middle managers within the machine bureaucracy suggests that it is important when appraising the records of this type of organization to look for and preserve records series documenting conflict resolution (such as the handling of non- standard cases), the implementation of standards from the technostructure, and implementation of action plans emanating from the strategic apex. Again, we find support for this hypothesis in what Yates writes about the large, func- tionally departmentalized business. She observes that: The functionally departmentalized company was likely to contain multiple constituen- cies and the desire to protect oneself by documenting transactions spread from external relations to internal ones. Although much of this interdepartmental correspondence, especially that below the level of the department heads, consisted of minor requests, complaints, and transfers of information, it often reflected and revealed interdepart- mental dynamics. The correspondence between the mill foreman and members of the Research Department, for example, highlighted the struggle involved in the shift of power away from the traditionally autonomous foreman to the more scientific Research Department.76 In addition, Yates observes that correspondence between mill foremen and members of the research department also contained information about the technology and machinery of production not found in correspondence between mill foremen and department heads. Interestingly, Yates’ conclusions about the rise of the scientific research department lends support to the impor- tance of a technostructure as a coordinating mechanism in the large, function- ally departmentalized enterprise, which is consistent with Mintzberg’s theory. On the basis of her observations, Yates recommends retaining files from the department level when appraising records. She notes that in “the functionally departmentalized company,” archivists can expect to find information within departments’ main office files which has been reported to the company’s cen- tral office, including aggregate statistics on operations and documentation on major changes in approach (though much less information on how the depart- ments’ basic functions were controlled or managed at different times). In par- ticular, Yates suggests that in a large and segmented department the acquisition of additional files from one or two levels lower is necessary to cap- ture the full flow of communications within the controlling and coordinating function.77 She goes on to say, however, that a sampling of low-level “homo- geneous” documents to supplement files from departmental and corporate executive offices will not alone suffice, as it will still leave a large gap in doc- umenting the communication flows between top, middle, and bottom levels of the organization. These reveal the way in which information is collected, shaped, and used as it flows through the company.78 Although on the right track, Yates’ analysis suggests that the archivist must 72 Archivaria 46 preserve virtually the organization’s entire documentation. She even partially concedes that her conclusions are leading in this direction in stating that “I do not mean to suggest by [my] analysis that archivists must keep everything.”79 Mintzberg’s more sophisticated analysis of organizational structure facilitates greater precision than Yates’ analysis. Instead of merely acknowledging that we should be preserving records at the middle management level, we are, by using Mintzberg’s theory and the appraisal hypotheses that flow from it, able to pinpoint the exact types of records which should be preserved from this position within the organization, that is, records relating to conflict resolution, to the implementation of standards emanating from the technostructure, and to strategies originating in the strategic apex. In addition, Mintzberg theorized that management information systems are a primary mechanism for the gathering of key organizational intelligence in a machine organization. On the basis of his theory, we may conclude that the archivist should look for and retain core elements of the management informa- tion system. As noted previously, such systems need not be automated, but in fact may consist of elements such as quarterly or annual reports, summary financial statements, and the like. Again, this hypothesis is consistent with Yates’ observations. She notes from her observations that in the functionally departmentalized enterprise there was a greater amount of written information flowing upwards than in the traditional small firm. As managers became far- ther removed from the company’s primary activities, such information became critical to work coordination and control, decision-making, and to monitoring the company’s financial and operational performance.80 Also in keeping with Mintzberg’s description of management information systems in machine organizations, Yates’ observes that managers of function- ally departmentalized enterprises were interested only in receiving enough information to make general policy decisions about executive personnel, finances, products, and markets. Thus, the information which reached them was highly summarized and analyzed, containing no details of day-to-day administration.81 On the implications of this form of internal communication for the appraisal of business records, Yates concludes that in all but small, owner-operated businesses, highly structured and regularly created docu- ments, such as short reports and forms at the department level, form signifi- cant parts of the management information system context through which the highly summarized information reaching top levels in the hierarchy must be understood and, that therefore, such documents must be preserved by the archivist. Her conclusions support the similar hypothesis, raised earlier and based on Mintzberg’s theory of the machine configuration, relating to the preservation of data residing in management information systems.82 Mintzberg’s description of the machine bureaucracy leads to the conclusion that record-keeping in such organizations will be more centralized and depen- dant on central filing rooms or registries in which files used by more than one Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 73 unit are maintained. Yet, Yates’ analysis raises questions, with changes in information technology and information management becoming factors in the period studied. Yates notes that when bound books were used for outgoing correspondence, files were of necessity centralized, but that with the advent of multiple carbon copies and vertical files, the number of files multiplied. Her study shows that, although contemporary textbooks on vertical filing systems recommended centralized filing, many companies had multiple sets of files containing duplicate copies of documents. This shift in practice and technol- ogy led not only to more decentralized filing, but to a situation wherein single files no longer contained the complete documentation of a transaction. As Yates notes, “A single document might appear in the files of the foreman, the Mills Department, and the general manager. While this system made it easier for each unit to find a given document, it also meant that more total file space was used and that no file was complete.”83 What Yates has to say about record-keeping systems in the large, functionally departmentalized business clearly suggests that, in addition to organizational function, information man- agement technology and practices influence record creation and keeping. Con- sequently, hypotheses about appraisal must be tempered with an understanding of the additional interplay created by these two significant fac- tors. The final configuration which Yates addresses is the diversified organiza- tion. According to Mintzberg, divisions in the diversified configuration have considerable operational autonomy. Corporate headquarters is concerned only with the central co-ordination of functions such as strategy formulation, per- formance measurement, and the movement of funds – not with the daily man- agement of the divisions. Thus, headquarters will be the location for archivally significant records related only to these centrally co-ordinated functions. Yates’ study supports this hypothesis’ validity, observing that: The executive committee and president of the entire corporation were concerned mainly with the financial success of the division. Only if problems arose would they look beyond the financial aspect. They restricted their own policy making to issues such as major investments in new product lines or major strategies of overseas invest- ment ... [T]he Du Pont executive committee developed analytical and presentational tools for evaluating the performance of the various divisions without involving the committee members in the operations of the divisions. Yates’ findings also indicate the form such records may take. She notes that: The analytical tool was the return-on-investment formula ... The presentational mecha- nism was its chart room, where charts monitoring the major determinants of return on investment were created for each division. The graphs in this room were the major form in which information on the divisions reached the executive committee, unless the 76 Archivaria 46 Figure Two: Key Configuration Indicators and Their Related Questions Key Configuration Indicator Prime Coordinating Mechanism Key Part of Organization Degree and Type of Decentralization Design Parameters Examples of Indicative Questions Do supervisors issue a large number of written orders or instructions to sub- ordinates? Does the organization produce a large number of policies, procedures, and guidelines arising out of work studies? Does the organization set clear and quantifiable targets for work output? Do the vast number of the organization’s employees require specialized skills, training, or education? Are there explicit values to which the organization’s employees are expected to adhere or which determine who may join the organization? Does the organization employ a large professional staff? Is the organization dominated by a particularly strong chief executive or leader? Does the organization employ a large number of technical analysts who set work standards for others? Does the organization employ a large number of support personnel who work closely with others (for example, in project teams)? Do the organization’s employees have a strong sense of mission? Are staff relations in the organization characterized by political in-fighting? Again, are the organization’s decisions generally made by a strong chief executive or leader? Instead, do the organization’s technical analysts have a significant role in organizational decision-making? Does the organization have a headquarters which makes decisions about strategy and policy direction? Does the organization’s operational staff (for example, professionals) exert major influence in the decision-making of the organization? Are decisions made on an ad hoc basis by small working groups or project teams? Is the organization extremely democratic, with decision-making taking place more or less on a consensual basis? Has the organization been in existence for several years? Is the organization large and complex? When was the organization established? Is the technical system of the organization highly regulated (for example, through assembly lines or data processing)? Is the technical system of the organization highly complex and specialized (as in the case of medical research labs)? Is the technical system highly automated? Is the organization’s business environment fluid and dynamic, or static and stable? Is the organization’s business environment simple, or complex? Is the organization’s business environment hostile? Is the organization’s business environment diversified (for example, with many geographic areas or market segments)? Is the organization subject to a great deal of external control (for example, being highly regulated)? If so, is external control unified or divided? Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 77 which is dominant, 3) the degree and type of decentralization present, and 4) the characteristics exhibited by the organization’s design parameters. Figure Two above outlines some of the more detailed types of questions for which archivists, using BSA tools, will need to seek answers. The archivist also will need to be on the watch for any major changes in answers to these questions, as these may indicate that there has been a transi- tion from one configuration to another. It is important to begin the analysis of key configuration indicators at the level of the system. That is, the archivist must begin the analysis at the level of the organization as a whole, before analyzing its parts. There is a Sufi tale which speaks eloquently to the reason for this approach. Three blind men approached an elephant. The first, grasping the ear, exclaimed “it’s a rug.” The second, holding the trunk pronounced that it was a hollow pipe. The third, holding the leg, that it was a pillar. The tale concludes with the observation that, given their way of coming to grips with the unknown, these men will never know an elephant.89 Thus, analysis for appraisal should begin at the highest level of the business system. This does not imply, however, that analysis must or should remain at this level. If the organization is small and lacks complexity, it may be possible to end research here. Nevertheless, in the case of large, complex organizations, analysis of lower levels will still likely be required, either because the scope of the appraisal project must, for practical reasons, be limited to a particular area of concentration or in order to discover whether there are pockets of activity within the organization that bear a closer resemblance to other configurations. What is meant by “lower levels” of an organization? When relying on a BSA analytical framework, this implies analysis of sub-systems, which sup- port the attainment of the system’s broad objectives. It must be emphasized that the term “sub-systems” does not refer to an organization’s administrative units: sub-systems bear a much closer relation to functions. By analyzing sub- systems, we avoid the analytical problems and consequent appraisal difficul- ties that occur when we deconstruct organizations by administrative unit. These include the possibility of selecting duplicate records, as identified by Jean-Stéphen Piché in his case study analyzing the appraisal of Government of Canada real property management records.90 The idea is to conduct the analy- sis to whatever level suits the scope of the appraisal project and permits the archivist to reasonably determine the organization’s configuration or combina- tion of configurations, proceeding from the highest level, the system, through to the lower levels, or sub-systems, like opening a set of Russian dolls. Having determined the appropriate configuration, the organizational analy- sis need go no further. Herein lies the time savings for archivists. The mapping of function to structures and record-keeping systems within each organization or part of an organization is not required, as it is with existing macro-appraisal approaches. The archivist simply uses the appraisal hypotheses flowing from 78 Archivaria 46 Mintzberg’s theory as a checklist or template to identify the types and sites of archivally significant records series. Naturally, the more fully articulated the appraisal hypotheses are, the more useful and time-saving they will be to the archivist in determining which records series to select and where to locate them. Applying these hypotheses in specific appraisal projects will support their further elaboration, as archivists can use what they learn to make refine- ments and modifications through inductive processes. At this stage, the archivist may wish to refine appraisal choices within indi- vidual records series by applying additional appraisal techniques, such as diplomatics, hermeneutics, sampling techniques, or Schellenbergian typo- logies. For example, the archivist (as previously discussed) may need to employ sampling for large case file series in order to reduce volume and save space. Conclusion Despite their often complex manifestations in the real world and the anoma- lies that may exist, Mintzberg’s configurations help us to understand organiza- tions, and in so doing give us a powerful tool to aid in the appraisal of records. The high level of correlation that exists between Samuels’ and Yates’ findings and the Mintzberg-based hypotheses put forward in this article suggest, at least on a preliminary basis, that these hypotheses have some validity. At the same time, differences between the case studies and the theory point to ways in which we can revise the hypotheses to both expand and refine the theory. Not only will application of Mintzberg’s theories to records appraisal mean the preservation of adequate documentation of organizational activities, func- tions, programs, and mandates, use of Mintzberg’s ideas will also have the added advantage of accumulating important additional information about how an organization functions. In other words, once the correct organizational con- figuration is identified, the archivist can then select records for preservation, basing his or her decision in large part on functionality. This is an approach which will capture those records which are most pertinent to documenting the organization’s core functions, because the richest sources of evidential docu- mentation about the functions of the organization will naturally be found in those records series that are key to the operations of the organization’s particu- lar configuration. Appraisal by configuration holds out the promise of being a quicker methodology than those currently used. By homing in on key identifi- ers of an organization’s configuration type such as the conditions of its exter- nal environment, the prime methods it uses to coordinate work, the part of the organization that dominates, and the degree of centralization or decentraliza- tion, the archivist can thus readily identify records series worthy of preserva- tion and their locus within the organization. Especially given further articulation of the appraisal hypotheses, and of the characteristics for which the archivist should look to identify organizational configurations, an experi- Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 81 In addition to the writings by Bearman and Cook cited above, this table draws on the follow- ing readings: Richard Brown, “Records Acquisition Strategy and its Theoretical Foundation: The Case for a Concept of Archival Hermeneutics,” Archivaria 33 (Winter 1991–92), pp. 34– 56; Richard Brown, “Macro-Appraisal Theory and the Context of the Public Records Creator, ”Archivaria 40 (Fall 1995), pp. 121–72; Helen Willa Samuels, “Who Controls the Past,” American Archivist 49 (Spring 1986), pp. 109–124; and Richard J. Cox and Helen W. Sam- uels, “The Archivist’s First Responsibility: A Research Agenda to Improve the Identification and Retention of Records of Enduring Value,” American Archivist 51 (Winter/Spring 1988), pp. 28–42. 5 I refer here not just to organizational theory or the writings of organizational theorists which, of course, focus specifically on organizations, but also to theories from such disciplines as sociology, social anthropology, and linguistics which, while not directly concerned with a study of organizations, nevertheless, provide an analytical framework on which the study of organizations, and by extension the context of records creation, can be based. These include theories already reflected in the writings of archivists on the context of records creation, such as Jacques Derrida’s theory of deconstruction (see, for example, Brien Brothman, “Orders of Value: Probing the Theoretical Terms of Archival Practice,” Archivaria 32 [Summer 1991], pp. 78–100) and Anthony Giddens’ theory of social structuration (see, for example, Cook, “Mind Over Matter”; Brown, “Macro-Appraisal Theory and the Context of the Public Records Creator”; and Frank Upward, “Structuring the Records Continuum - Part Two: Structuration Theory and Recordkeeping,” Archives and Manuscripts 25, no. 1 [1997], pp. 1–35). 6 See, for example, H.H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, eds., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York, 1948), the first translation into English of Weber’s seminal work Wirtschaft and Gesellschaft. For commentaries on how Weber’s ideas have permeated the field of archives, see for example, Michael Lutzker, “Max Weber and the Analysis of Modern Bureaucratic Organization: Notes Towards a Theory of Appraisal,” American Archivist 45 (Spring, 1982), pp. 119–30; Michel Duchein, “Theoretical Principles and Practical Problems of Respect des fonds in Archival Science,” Archivaria 16 (Summer, 1983), pp. 64–82; and Richard Brown, “Macro-Appraisal Theory and the Context of the Public Records Creator,” Archivaria 40 (Fall, 1995), pp. 121–72. 7 See, for example, Duchein, “Theoretical Principles and Practical Problems of Respect des fonds in Archival Science,” pp. 64–82; David Bearman and Richard Lytle, “The Power of the Principle of Provenance,” Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985–86), pp. 14–27; and Terry Cook, “The Concept of the Archival Fonds in the Post-Custodial Era: Theory, Problems and Solutions,” Archivaria 35 (Spring 1993), pp. 24–37. One of the most cogent criticisms of the Weberian model has come from Richard Brown in his article on “Macro-Appraisal and the Context of the Public Records Creator.” Brown writes of the model and derived archival conceptions of the public records creator that they “block and filter out elements of complications, discor- dance, chaos, disruption, and disorder ... that coincidentally mark and articulate the world of bureaucratic records in the historical process, that is, the diachrony of information” (p. 138). 8 This is not to suggest that these writers have not been influenced by other social theories. Terry Cook and Richard Brown, in particular, draw from the ideas of post-modernists such as Michel Foucault, as well as the structuration theory of Anthony Giddens. 9 For a discussion of the evolution of functionalism as a sociological school of thought see Donald McQuarrie, Readings in Contemporary Sociological Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995) and James Farganis, Readings in Social Theory: The Classic Tradition to Post-Modern- ism (New York, 1993). 10 Anthony Giddens’ “structuration theory” rests on the idea that all social action consists of social practices situated in time and space. Social practice is organized in a skilled and knowl- edgeable fashion. However, unintended consequences of previous actions work to constrain and limit human knowledge and action. Giddens transcends action theory (the notion that 82 Archivaria 46 humans are intelligent actors, not merely acted upon by the “system”) and institutional theory in his “duality of structure,” that is, that social structure is shaped by a set of rules that both constrain actors and act as a resource at the same time. Social structures, then, are recursively both the medium and the outcome of social practice. For more on Anthony Giddens’ theory see Ian Craib, Anthony Giddens (London, 1992). 11 Anthony Giddens and Jonathan Turner, eds., Social Theory Today (Oxford, 1987), p. 3. 12 Richard Münch, “Parsonian Theory Today: In Search of a New Synthesis,” in ibid., p 133. To me this suggests, contrary to the implied criticism of structural-functionalism in Frank Upward’s essay on structuring the records continuum, that far from being a thing of the past, structural-functionalism is enjoying somewhat of a revival and has continuing relevance for the archivist. What can be criticized, and here I agree with Upward, is its past application. (See Frank Upward, “Structuring the Records Continuum - Part Two: Structuration Theory and Recordkeeping”). I would like to express my thanks to the anonymous reviewer who brought Upward’s article to my attention. 13 For example, David Bearman and Richard Lytle write in “The Power of the Principle of Prov- enance” (p. 22) that “functions are independent of organizational structures, more closely related to the significance of documentation than organizational structures, and both finite in number and linguistically simple” and Terry Cook writes in “Mind Over Matter: Towards a New Theory of Archival Appraisal” (p. 46), that “it may be asserted that the interaction of function and structure together articulates the corporate mind (or program) of the records cre- ator. The creator in turn articulates many subfunctions and establishes numerous substructures to carry out these broad programs. These in turn create or adopt information systems to orga- nize and supply documentation needed to carry out these functions, and through these infor- mation systems are produced the records that archivists will eventually appraise.” 14 Henry Mintzberg, The Nature of Managerial Work (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973). 15 Henry Mintzberg, The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1979) and Structures in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1983). The Mintzberg text primarily relied upon and cited in this article is Mintz- berg’s 1989 compilation of his writings, Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations (New York, 1989). This is an anthology of Mintzberg’s ideas on orga- nizations and how they are managed. The essays found within the book are grouped into three sections: 1) what the manager does, the process of strategy development, and the need for intuition and analysis in management; 2) the seven basic organizational configurations, how differently configured organizations achieve coordination and formulate strategies, the role of politics in organizations, and the driving forces of organizations; and 3) the role of the large organization in society. 16 The most sweeping criticism of Mintzberg’s work could be leveled at its structural-functional- ism; however, I hope that the brief discussion of the re-emergence of functionalism, despite the criticisms of post-modernists and others, has convinced the reader of its continuing valid- ity as an analytic framework. 17 I would like to express my thanks to the anonymous reviewer who brought several of these theorists to my attention, including but certainly not limited to Anthony Giddens’ structura- tion theory, E.W. Stein’s articles on organizational memory, and Mary Douglas on how institu- tions think. Those wishing to explore the ideas of these theorists may wish to consult Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society (Cambridge, 1984), Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (London, 1987), and E.W. Stein, “Organizational Memory: Review of Concepts and Recommendations for Management,” International Journal of Information Management 15, no. 1 (1995), pp. 17–32. 18 Brown, “Macro-Appraial Theory and the Context of the Public Records Creator,” pp. 127–28. Brown concludes that record creator sites with official responsibility for record-keeping are not necessarily the sites holding archivally significant records and that, in fact, in focussing on Applying Mintzberg’s Theories on Organizational Configuration 83 what (following National Archives of Canada terminology) he calls “offices of creation” and not just on “offices of primary interest,” the archival application of hermeneutics will provide important documentary evidence of prime business transactions. Brown then advances his the- ory of archival hermeneutics as the means of identifying those nodes of creator context, the records of which should be selected for archival preservation. 19 David Bearman, “Diplomatics, Weberian Bureaucracy, and the Management of Electronic Records in Europe and America.” Bearman’s conclusions draw upon the work of Geert Hofestede, Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values (Bev- erly Hills, 1980). 20 Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management, p. 100. 21 For a further elaboration of the systems view of organizations see Gareth Morgan, Images of Organization (Newbury Park, 1986). 22 Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management, pp. 98–99. 23 Ibid., p. 99. 24 Ibid., p. 101. 25 Ibid., pp. 101–103. 26 Ibid., pp. 103–106. 27 Ibid., pp. 106–107. 28 Ibid., p. 107. 29 This is an observation also made by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book Reinventing Government (New York, 1992). They write about the changing environment in which govern- ment institutions, for the most part classical bureaucracies, operate, and call for lean, decen- tralized, and innovative organizations in response to these environmental changes. Re- engineering gurus Michael Hammer and James Champy also write about how organizations should change in response to a more competitive environment. See Michael Hammer and James Champy, Reegineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution (New York, 1993), pp. 11–12, 17. 30 Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management, pp. 108–109. 31 Ibid., p. 109. 32 Ibid., pp. 109–115. 33 Ibid., p. 110. 34 Using organizational typologies to aid appraisal is not a new idea. In a 1985 article on the appraisal of business documents, JoAnne Yates proposed three basic types of organizations – the traditional owner managed, the larger, functionally departmentalized firm, and the multidi- visional firm – suggesting that each of these types has distinct internal communication sys- tems. Yates argued that an understanding of these systems reveals crucial relationships and communication flows important for the appraisal of records. Yates’ observations, however, were limited to three types of typical business structures, as opposed to Mintzberg’s seven, and applied to appraisal of business records rather than records of all types of organizations, as is proposed in this article. It should be noted that Yates used an inductive method (that is, she analyzed internal communication of three businesses using their archives) to make her recom- mendations about appraisal of business records. This article adopts a deductive approach. See JoAnne Yates, “Internal Communication Systems in American Business Structures: A Frame- work to Aid Appraisal,” American Archivist 48, no. 2 (Spring 1985), pp. 141–58. 35 See Cook, “Mind Over Matter.” 36 Frank Upward, “Structuring the Records Continuum – Part Two: Structuration Theory and Recordkeeping.” 37 Mintzberg, Mintzberg on Management, pp. 117–18. 38 Ibid., pp. 118–21. 39 Ibid., pp. 133–37. 40 Ibid., pp. 137–38.