Core Insights - The article emphasizes that organizational structure is not a one-time design but needs to adapt continuously as companies grow and face changing environments [1][7][16] - It outlines a cyclical pattern of organizational development: first concentrating, then decentralizing, and finally integrating again to maintain efficiency and innovation [1][7][9] Organizational Development Dynamics - Companies experience a "breathing" rhythm where they first come together, then separate, and eventually regroup [2][7] - In the initial stages, organizations are simple and communication is direct, but as they grow, functional divisions emerge, leading to increased efficiency [2][3] - However, as departments become more specialized, collaboration becomes challenging, resulting in decreased overall efficiency [2][3][4] Decentralization and Its Consequences - To regain speed, companies often decentralize decision-making, granting autonomy to business units or regional teams [3][5] - While this can create short-term vitality, it can also lead to a decline in overall coordination and collaboration [3][4] Signals for Re-integration - Companies should look for specific signals indicating the need for re-integration: - Changes in the external environment, such as new technologies or shifts in customer demand, may render existing structures ineffective [9][10] - Fragmentation causing significant obstacles, where internal teams struggle to collaborate effectively [11][12] - A noticeable decline in organizational "fluidity," indicating that energy is dissipating rather than focusing on common goals [13][14] Challenges of Fragmentation - Signs of fragmentation include incompatible products, lack of unified standards, and increased internal competition for resources [14][15] - Decision-making becomes slower, resource allocation more difficult, and internal communication costs rise, leading to decreased morale [15][16] Management Principles for Re-integration - When re-integrating, it is crucial to flatten the organizational hierarchy to ensure that key functions are visible and accessible to the CEO and core management [16] - Organizations should be managed as dynamic systems that adjust to changes in strategy, balancing expansion and contraction, decentralization and unification [16][17]

Core Insights - The article discusses the 50th anniversary of Henry Mintzberg's classic work "The Manager's Job: Folklore and Fact," which aimed to debunk myths about effective management and won the McKinsey Award for the best article in the Harvard Business Review in its publication year [1] - Mintzberg emphasizes the need to redefine management and organizational structures in the context of modern challenges, highlighting the importance of understanding the true nature of organizations for effective management [4][6] Group 1: Management Philosophy - Mintzberg's contributions include redefining strategy as a learning process rather than mere planning, and advocating for social learning in management training instead of traditional case studies [3] - He argues that management is not just about planning, organizing, or coordinating, but rather about understanding and navigating complexity, which he describes as "planned chaos and controllable disorder" [10] Group 2: Organizational Structures - Mintzberg identifies four basic organizational forms: personal organizations (e.g., startups), programmed organizations (e.g., McDonald's), professional organizations (e.g., hospitals), and project-based organizations (e.g., film companies) [5] - He stresses that applying the same management principles across different types of organizations can lead to confusion and ineffective management [5][9] Group 3: Practical Management Insights - Effective management requires a deep understanding of the specific type of organization being managed, as different organizations operate in fundamentally different ways [9] - Mintzberg highlights the importance of personnel selection at all levels, suggesting that feedback from those who have been managed by candidates can provide valuable insights into their management style [13] Group 4: Impact of Automation - Automation is described as a game-changer that can transform bureaucratic organizations into more agile ones, replacing large numbers of workers with engineers focused on design and maintenance [18] - The shift towards automation necessitates a reevaluation of operational methods and organizational structures, moving from mass production to customized project-based approaches [18]