A New Typology for Organizations: Market, Bureaucracy, Clan and Mission, with Application to American Denominations

Recently writers have become concerned about the unsuitability of available models for the study of organizations which affirm values or involve strong commitments. Past preoccupation has been with Weber's rational Bureaucracy needs to be complemented by alternative models which are general, neutrally descriptive and operational. Suggested complements are market, clan, and mission. Each (including bureaucracy) contains a sine qua non strength which, together in balance, produces greater survival power than when included only singly or in combination with only one or two others. The four models can also be used in historical sequence. American denominations, for example, have usually been conceived as missions, but selectively have become clanlike in isolation; or, under the impress of task management requirements have taken on elements of bureaucracy and/or market. In the recent past, pursuit of internal mission (evangelism) seems negatively correlated with external (social action). The problem of all organizations, including denominations, is to maximize balance among elements of all four types. It is essential that social scientists develop tool-symbols to lay hold on reality. Often, however, as we lay hold on one expression of reality by use of one tool-symbol, we unintentionally distort our hold on a related (but not identical) second expression of reality. Max Weber thus has done us singular service in coining and formulating his well-known concept of bureaucracy. Few other ideas have so dominated a field as bureaucracy has dominated the sociological study of complex organizations. However, as we investigate beyond the structures of government, military, and business and begin to see how organizationally differentiated modern society really is, we being to realize there is more to organizations than We begin to appreciate the need for other typeforms to complement Weber's seminal concept. Those who work with and try to understand voluntary, collectivistic, and religious organizations thus find indiscriminant application of Weber's bureaucracy to be inadequate, simplistic, and superficial. Open-systems concepts have at least freed us from unexamined assumptions about the closed nature of an organization's relations to its environment. Were Weber alive today, he would perhaps be surprised at the over-exclusive use of his concept of bureaucracy, since implicit in his writings are other alternative models. Thus, we need to make these other models explicit in order to describe the diverse reality which comprises the modern organizational scene.