“An important paradigm shift in the emerging knowledge age is the movement from machine

metaphors to biological metaphors. There is a focus on the whole and the connection of the
parts (pieces) rather than on the whole or pieces alone.”

Organic Organizational Design

By Gina Hinrichs A core concept for design is “Form fol- thinking and provides a guide to designing
lows Function”. An organization, like any either a part of or the whole organization.
design challenge should be designed to A case study of a nonprofit organization is
effectively deliver to its function (purpose). provided with outcomes and implications
Organizational design would be a straight- for profit organizations.
forward task if organizations operated in
isolation or if the external environment Org Design 101
was stable. Since organizations are open
systems that exist within an ever changing Organizations deliver exactly what they
and increasingly complex environment, are either intentionally or unintention-
the task of organizational design becomes ally designed to deliver. If there is a lack
a challenge. To add to the challenge, of understanding or intentionality in the
organizations are in the midst of moving design, what is delivered may not be what
from an industrial age to a knowledge age is desired. Organizational design should
(Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles & Coleman, respond to the environment, internal
1997) that disrupts existing paradigms capabilities, and change while maintain-
and structures based on linear models for ing balance, a sense of stability, and clarity.
organizations. Galbraith (1995) contends that organi-
Despite many approaches to orga- zational design is a key task for leaders.
nizational design, a practical, multi-level Leadership in an organization should be as
framework is missing that can guide concerned about organizational design as
organizational designers to deal with a they are about strategic planning since the
dynamic environment 1 that is increasingly best strategy without implementation does
calling for complex adaptive systems2. In not deliver value.
this paper, an explanation of organic orga- Organizational design is a creative pro-
nizational design (Org2 Design), a case for cess for designing and aligning elements of
action of a new approach, the Org2 Design an organization to efficiently and effectively
framework, and a comparison of classic deliver the purpose of an organization.
approaches are provided. Org2 Design is Organizational design is concerned with
offered as an approach that builds upon accomplishing the work to achieve the
the best of existing organizational design strategic intent. The basic question is how
to distribute the work while maintaining
1. Some theorist use terms such as turbulent, alignment and integration of people, pro-
dynamic, permanent whitewater, etc. to describe cesses, structures, systems, and culture.
an environment that is both complex and
unpredictable.
Design Elements
2. There is not one definition of CAS but Anderson
(1999) offers four characteristics: agents, sustaining Many theorists have proposed methods
self-organizing, co-evolution at the edge of chaos, to design organizations. Although most
and recombination and system evolution. theories focus on a different aspect of the

4 OD PRACTITIONER  Vol. 41 No. 4  2009

design challenge, there is a commonality of McKinsey’s 7-S, Tichy’s Strategic Manage- Organizations reflected a mechanistic
elements. Most of the approaches acknowl- ment model, Nadler’s Congruence Model, model. This was effective for the era since
edge that strategy drives the design. Gelinas & James Collaborative Organiza- the need for efficiency was predominate
Common elements to be considered for tional Design, Weisbord’s 6 Box Model and and responding to change was not as
design are: Chaordic Six Lens. These approaches are essential. Access to information was not
»» People: the members of the organiza- compared on aspects of the number of de- widespread nor was there a highly educated
tion, their attraction, capabilities, aspi- sign elements, the description of the design workforce. Decision making was concen-
rations, development, and retention elements, the focus of the design, and dif- trated at the top. This authoritarian, hierar-
»» Processes: the information and work- ferentiators to the approach. Each approach chical model provided clarity, consistency,
flows that deliver value to the customer, is valuable in addressing important design and control. It worked, then.
maintain the business, or enable other elements of an organization. Org2 Design In today’s world, information technol-
processes builds from aspects of all of these organi- ogy, globalization, increasing customer
»» Systems: Information/knowledge, zational design approaches but especially demands, and a more highly educated
communication, funding, and measure- draws from the Chaordic approach. workforce push organizations to be more
ment systems The situation and type of organization adaptive and growth oriented. In addition,
»» Structures: configurations and con- determines which approach would best there have been several mindset shifts in
nections of roles, responsibilities, be employed by the designer. A situation the perceptions of the nature of organiza-
accountabilities, relationships to share that may point to the use of the Chaordic tions and communities. Some of the most
knowledge, make decisions, take action,
and learn
»» Culture: shared values, assumptions,
Organizations reflected a mechanistic model. This was effective
and approaches to cope with external for the era since the need for efficiency was predominate
adaptation and internal integration that
are reinforced through norms, artifacts,
and responding to change was not as essential. Access to
stories, and rewards information was not widespread nor was there a highly
Design Choices
educated workforce. Decision making was concentrated at the
There are many choice points in design- top. This authoritarian, hierarchical model provided clarity,
ing an organization. The designer must
be aware of existing paradigms such as
consistency, and control. It worked, then.
mechanistic, linear thinking as compared
to organic and non-linear models. Finding or Org2 Design approach is that of global- interesting mindset shifts follow:
a balance that optimizes the aligned per- ization, growth, complexity, and change. »» Nature and adaptation are better mod-
formance of people, processes, structures, These two approaches are most effective in els for dynamic organizational environ-
systems, and culture is the goal. Design using commitment instead of control as an ments than the efficient but inflexible
choices involve: organizing principle. machine models.
»» Location of power and authority »» Centralized control is self-limiting.
for decision making and resource The Impact of Industrial Age ➔ Knowledge Diversity and innovation thrive when
allocation Age Shift authority and information are located
»» Role and task differentiation and It is widely acknowledged that we are in where the value creating work is done.
coordination the midst of an historic shift from the »» Stability ó change; competition ó
»» Configuration—entities and alignment industrial age to a knowledge age. The shift collaboration; freedom ó self-gov-
that matches the complexity of the is uneven at both a macro and micro level ernance; and individuality ó com-
environment (Miles, et al., 1997). An important para- munity are not opposites. The greatest
»» Responsiveness and stability/ digm shift in the emerging knowledge age benefit comes when we think in terms
consistency is the movement from machine metaphors of both/and rather than either /or.
»» Perspective of the whole and parts to biological metaphors. There is a focus »» Organizations are held together by
»» Knowledge sharing and feedback loops on the whole and the connection of the purpose, shared beliefs, identity and
parts (pieces) rather than on the whole commitment—not force.
Design Approaches or pieces alone. From our industrial age »» Organizations progress through their
A comparison of different organizational roots, organizations were thought to have ability to remain coherent, make
design approaches is provided in Table 1. It clear boundaries and assumed a command sense, and respond effectively to their
compares such prevalent organization- and control, hierarchical organizational environment.
al design approaches as Galbraith’s 5 Star, structure.

Organic Organizational Design 5

 Table 1:  Organizational Design Approaches Comparison

Approach/Theorist # Design Elements Design Elements Focus/Point Key Points or Differentiator

Five Star 5 Categories of • Strategy Strategy An organization is an information
decision • Structure processing entity dealing with
Galbraith
• People uncertainty as it achieves the strategy.
• Rewards Organizational design is a critical
• Processes leadership role. Matching, linking,
coordinating 5 categories.

McKinsey 7-S 7 connected circles • Strategy Strategy Super ordinate goal. Seeks sustainable
• Structure competitive advantage.
• Systems
Most prevalent. Top down.
• Skills
• Staff
• Style
• Shared Values

Strategic 3 X 2 Elements 3 System aspects Alignment of Multi-perspective look at change and

Management • Technical Systems & Tools response needed. Fit of Technical,
• Political Political, and Cultural Systems to
Tichy
• Cultural Management Tools.

Aligned Mgmt Tools

• Mission/Strategy
• Org Structure
• HR Mgmt

Congruence Model 4 Components • Informal Org Fit Organization as a system that transforms
• Formal Org an input to an output through the fit of 4
Nadler
• Work components. Acknowledges the power of
• People informal.

Collaborative 7 Integrated Circles • Core Goals & Core Goals of Future Design Teams use this model to both
Organizational Values at design team level create their vision and design their
Design • Strategy organization. Goals are measurable.
• Work Processes Values are the how.
Gelinas & James
• Structure
It is used for unit level design.
• Systems
• People
• Culture

Six Box Model 6 Boxes • Purpose Purpose and Clarity and balance important. The model
• Structure Leadership helps the client to visualize his or her
Weisbord
• Relationships organization as a systemic whole without
• Helpful the use of strange terminology.
Mechanisms
• Rewards
• Leadership

Chaordic Design 6 Lenses • Purpose Purpose and High commitment, whole system, growth
• Principles Principles & change focus.
Hock &
• Participants
Getzendanner Iterative so elements inform, support,
• Org Concept
and balance each other.
• Constitution
• Practices Departure from rationalist tradition
results focus.

6 OD PRACTITIONER  Vol. 41 No. 4  2009

 Table 2:   Mechanistic Versus Organic Organizational Factors

From—Mechanistic To—Organic
The above emerging mindsets call for
a more organic organizational design Function driven Purpose driven
approach. The more appropriate organic Closed Open
approach that focuses on growth and
sustainability for the organization is taking Parts Whole
root. Top down—hierarchical control Local focus & empowered
Many of the traditional approaches
Centralized Distributed/Networked
in organizational design operate from the
concepts that were effective in the “From— Departmentalized Connected
Mechanistic”, industrial age side of Table 2. Sameness Diversity
In order to design an effective organization
Stability Growth/Change
for the future, the “To—Organic” growth,
responsive side should be the criteria of
design.
Chaordic 3 Design was introduced Design approach has been accomplished in for delivering value to stakeholders.
by Dee Hock (1999) and refined by Joel a two day workshop. The goals change as the environment
Getzendanner 4 to specifically address the In the Org2 Design approach, one changes but delivering value does not
“To—Organic” side. Their organizational discovers that each facet provides clarity change.
design approach utilizes six lenses to gain while raising questions of the other facets. »» Principles (& Values) are clear, com-
perspective on the nature of an integrated In a sense, the design approach provides monly understood and agreed upon
organization. Their approach is well suited momentary completion but is never really statements of what will guide the
to support growth, responsiveness, and finished since the organization and its behavior of the participants in pursuit
empowerment for complex adaptive sys- environment continue to co-evolve. Some of purpose. Organizing principles and
tems. It is especially suited for both global facets have a stable aspect and a changing, shared beliefs are intrinsic schemata
and local communities where participants responsive aspect. The design must evolve and values that attract participants, cre-
are attracted by shared understanding while remaining aligned and integrated. ate alignment, and coordinate relation-
and conviction to the purpose of the ships. Values like quality, integrity, and
organization. Org2 Design’s Six Facets innovation are core so remain stable.
Principles rarely change but can be
Org2 Design A brief introduction of the six facets is affected by the environment and local
provided below: culture (e.g. employee engagement as a
Org2 design builds upon foundational »» Purpose is pursuing what is deeply principle can be impacted by culture or
organizational design approaches. As meaningful; the reason for being is level of education).
an adaptation and simplification of the a foundational level of purpose. It »» Practices operate at a behavioral level.
Chaordic approach, Org2 Design also uti- is internally focused and long term. They are specific agreements on how
lizes six lenses (facets) to gain perspective Purpose is a clear and simple statement to operate and co-evolve. Practices are
and iteratively design an organization. By of the worthy pursuit that identifies and more observable than Principles (e.g.
engaging in a process of considering each binds the organiza-
of the facets of the organization, designers tion (stable aspect).
Figure 1: Six Facets of an Org2 Design™
gain clarity that leads to decisions to coher- Purpose leads
ently deliver to the purpose of the orga- to commitment
nization. The approach is not linear and which is the ulti- Purpose
cannot be accomplished in a single pass. mate internalized
Pieces
Org2 Design’s six facets (see Figure 1) are: linking and coordi-
Purpose, Principles, Practices, Participants, nating mechanism. Principles
Processes, and Pieces. These facets are The responsive
dealt with somewhat sequentially and aspect of purpose
absolutely iteratively. The simplified Org2 that is externally
Processes
influenced is Practices
strategy. Strategy
3. Chaordic stands for the intersection of Chaos and
can be considered
Order where innovation emerges.
4. A debt of gratitude is extended to Joel a set of decisions
Participants
Getzendanner. Without his insights, the Org2 design to achieve the orga-
approach would not exist. nization’s goals

Organic Organizational Design 7

 location of power/authority, decision Case Study: Positive Change Core (PCC) PCC Purpose
making, accountability, acquiring and
PCC provides a strength-focused, whole
distributing resources, knowledge PCC is a nonprofit organization created systems participation and process to
sharing, and acknowledgement). Trust to bring strength-focused whole systems school communities to co-create desired
is created in the organization when par- change approaches to school communi- futures
ticipants can anticipate how others will ties. It began in 2001. The purpose was
behave. Co-evolution occurs best when compelling but the organization struggled
there are a minimum amount of agree- because it lacked an organizational design PCC Principles:
ments. Practices change to respond that could deliver the purpose. In 2005, Encouraged by the success in creating a
to external and internal changes. after little progress had been made, Joel Purpose statement that was aspirational
The changes must be agreed to by Getzendanner worked with a design team and inspirational, the team moved to
Participants and align with Purpose and using Chaordic approaches to design PCC. Principles. Principles should guide collec-
Principles. This approach morphed into a simplified tive behavior and attract new participants.
»» Participants are members or agents of and practical approach referred to as Org2 The question that helped uncover
the organization. Participants define Design. The design conversations and PCC’s core principles follows:
who is involved and how they con- results are provided. »» What principles or values would allow
tribute, are valued, and valuable. This The first session focused on the us to trust and give permission to
involves roles, responsibilities, skills, Purpose and Principles. Since these two enthusiastically and innovatively pursue
competencies, learning, and move- facets are foundational, the design team PCC’s Purpose?
ment in and out of the organization. needed agreement to proceed to the other
Participants are the locus of distinctive facets. The team knew that any facet could PCC Principles
skills that allows collaborative execution be reconsidered due to the iterative nature
• Honor each other’s basic rights
to the purpose/strategy. Each agent has of the process. • Welcome new and returning
both shared and individual schema that Powerful questions at each facet participants and ideas
determines actions. helped with what was already known and • Be coherent as a whole and
»» Processes define the work, information, provided access to new insights. The team understand the connection of Pieces
and feedback flows that produce value engaged in dialogue until they arrived at a • Invite creation of new Pieces to the
for the customer, Participants, and com- facet design that provided coherence. It was system
munity. There are two main types of important for the team to stay open in their • Create and honor agreements freely
processes: customer value creating pro- thinking so they were willing to iterate as and with commitment
cesses and supporting processes. There they worked through the facets. • Exchange knowledge generously
• Create solutions and make our
is a tension in processes to provide
own decisions that reasonably
stability/consistency yet responsive- PCC Purpose:
represent the relevant and affected
ness/flexibility. Variation is both friend Since PCC had been in existence for several stakeholders.
and foe. years, the team had aspirations and experi- • Protect who and what’s important
»» Pieces are the organizational configura- ence. This facilitated the conversations for to us
tion or structure. Pieces are aligned and Purpose. The questions that focused the • Seek collaboration yet work with
coordinated groupings of Participants conversation were: whom and how we want.
executing the Processes and utilizing »» What brings meaning to PCC?
resources (especially information) to »» What do you believe PCC is in service PCC Practices:
further the purpose/strategy of the to? The first session ended with a shift in
organization. Pieces are the units, »» What do we want to be different as understanding and commitment to PCC.
networks, patterns of growth, relation- a result of our work? Different for The next session continued with a main
ships, and connections to the whole. Participants? For PCC? In the world? focus on Practices. The challenge was to
Each Piece of the organization is a frac- As a result of the discussions, the team discover the minimum amount of agree-
tal in the sense that each entity contains created a clear statement of meaning and ments that would align and keep the orga-
aspects of the whole. intent. The following and subsequent facet nization coherent.
statements are in their completed form. The questions that guided PCC’s
The real understanding of the meaning There were several iterations to get to this Practices discussion were:
of the facets and how they describe the outcome. The iterations are not provided. »» How is power/energy and authority
organization is gained by experiencing and organized?
having conversations about each facet in
the context of each other and the organiza-
tion that is being designed.

8 OD PRACTITIONER  Vol. 41 No. 4  2009

 Figure 2: PCC Processes: A High Level Map

»» Who decides where

and how decisions
are made?
»» What agreements Client’s Needs/Processes
Client’s Needs/Processes
are needed to hold
the system together Value
ValueCreating
CreatingProcesses
Processes
as a whole?
»» What are possible Leadership Feedback
Processes Project
Project Resource
Resource Project
Project Processes
paths for growth Acquisition Acquisition Fulfillment
Acquisition Acquisition Fulfillment
and adaptation?
»» Is there anything
that needs to be
commonly owned? Supporting Processes
Supporting Processes
How? On whose Learning
Learning Member
Member Information
Information &
& Partner
Partner
behalf? Processes
Processes Support
Support Communication
Communication Acquisition
Acquisition

»» How do resources
and value flow? Partners’
Partners Processes
’ Processes
Practices empha-
sized the need to be
iterative. The first
iteration did not break
down the agreements
by participant. Center of Excellence (CoE) participants resent relevant and affected parties?
are expected to: »» Who will be requested to participate in
PCC Practices • Operate as servant leaders to governance of PCC?
facilitate the distribution of
 ommunity of Interest (CoI)
C knowledge, authority, and resources
participants agree to: PCC Participant Types
to the maximum degree
• Personally commit to work with • Include affected participants and CoI Level:
schools in a way consistent with the equitably represent the interest of • School Community Change Agents
purpose and principles of PCC. all relevant and affected parties in • Volunteers
• Protect and use the PCC logo in governance and decision making. • Resources
accordance with policies and values • Ensure no existing participant be
• Actively share knowledge with the CoP Level:
left in a lesser position by any new
PCC community. • Mentors
concept of organization.
• Protect each other’s personal • Topic Specialists
intellectual property and • Project Leaders
confidentiality CoE Level:
PCC Participants:
• Collaborate with clear roles and • Servant Leaders
accountabilities. The next challenge was to distinguish the
• Administrators
• Participate when and to the level Participants of the organization. The goal
• Trainers
you choose while providing clarity was to clearly define participation level,
of your commitments. eligibility, accountabilities, and benefits.
Membership had to allow for growth, PCC Processes
Community of Practice (CoP)
participants are expected to: diversity, and movement. Movement was a The Process facet is a point of departure of
• Transfer strength-focused whole key issue. Participants had to feel comfort- Org2 Design from the Chaordic approach.
system capability to school able connecting, participating, leaving, and PCC desired more structure and simplifica-
communities returning based on their energy and inter- tion that added Process as a facet.
• Participate in creating a vision and est. The questions that guided the discus- The team was interested in identifying
operational plan sion follow: value-creating, supporting, and leadership
• Be fairly compensated for service »» Why would someone be attracted and processes. Defining the work and informa-
and expertise excited to participate in PCC? tion flows that provided both consistency
»» What are the respective rights and and flexibility was critical for a complex
responsibilities of Participants? adaptive system. The questions that helped
»» Are decision bodies small enough to us understand and define PCC’s processes
work efficiently, yet large enough to rep- were:

Organic Organizational Design 9

 Figure 3: PCC Processes: A High Level Map

Champion/
customer Cultural Guide

Connection, Translation PCC CoP

(Youth) Schools & School Community

Local/Regional PCC CoP

governance • Projects
consensus • Learning
council • Knowledge Sharing
• Connecting
• Communicating
• Accountability

Services
• Training
Support
Processes Products Practices PCC
• Certification CoP COE

Translation, Linkages, and Alignment

To Government and other organizations

– Members – Lead Learner – Mentor – Partner

»» What are our (3-5) customer value creat- blend of competition and cooperation, and The team’s models finally evolved into a
ing processes? the global and local nature of PCC. The model of the interaction of a CoI, CoP, and
»» What are our (3-5) supporting questions that guided this facet follow: a CoE in service to school communities.
processes? »» How is power and authority operation- The PCC model is depicted in Figure 3.
»» What are our (3-5) leadership processes alized in the unit (Piece)? The last design session iterated around
that provide governance, vision, and »» Where are decisions made at each all six facets to refine and ensure align-
change? Piece? ment. By considering and reconsidering
»» What are our feedback/learning pro- »» What work and resources are located at each of the facets, the team improved
cesses that allow us to co-evolve? each Piece? clarity and commitment to the purpose of
»» How is knowledge shared? Who talks to PCC. The team felt the design could sup-
PCC Pieces whom and when? port local school community change agents
»» How do the Pieces hold together as a and PCC Participants.
The last facet was the most difficult to con- whole?
ceptualize. It would have been impossible »» What are the linkages and ways to stay Outcomes
without the insight to the previous five fac- aligned?
ets. The team used Leggos®, Tinker Toys®, »» How is growth and adaptation sup- The clarity from experiencing the Org2
and various two dimensional drawing tools ported at the Pieces? Design process has encouraged PCC par-
to create the interaction of Pieces. They »» How does idea generation and innova- ticipants to operate simultaneously and in
worked to provide a visual of the whole and tion occur? How are the local adapta- a coordinated fashion. This has supported
the Pieces as interconnected and inter- tions communicated to the whole and development of a website, training mate-
dependent. Several designs were created. best practices deployed? rials, articles, books, school community
Each one strived to depict participation, transformation projects, regional CoPs,
diversity, novelty, innovation, adaptation, a and the formation of a 501(c)(3). Like most

10 OD PRACTITIONER  Vol. 41 No. 4  2009

 Gina Hinrichs, PhD, worked for
John Deere for over twenty years.
She was the Quality Manager for
social profit organizations (an emerging Galbraith, J.R. (1995). Designing organiza-
term for nonprofits), PCC participants tions: An executive briefing on strategy, Worldwide Harvesting before
are voluntary. They must be attracted to structure, and process. San Francisco: starting her OD Consulting
the Purpose, committed to the Principles, Jossey-Bass Publishers. business in the US Midwest in
willing to act according to the Practices, Galbraith, J. Designing the innovating 2001. She earned an MBA from
feel valued and bring value as a Participant, organization. Retrieved November 14, Northwestern University before
able to execute the Processes, and design 2007, from http://www.jaygalbraith.
earning her PhD from Benedictine
their Piece to fit into the whole. com/resources/designing_innovating_org.
pdf. University. Gina is a professor for
Beyond Social Profit Gelinas, M., & James, R. Collaborative both Capella and Lawrence Tech
organizational design, Retrieved Universities’ online programs. She
It is evident that Org2 Design is effective November 5, 2007, from http://www. co-authored the Thin Book of
in social profit but it is also effective in gelinasjames.com/what.html. SOAR: Building Strengths-Based
for-profit organizations. The author has Hock, D. (2000). Birth of the chaordic age.
Strategy. She can be reached at
subsequently applied Org2 Design with a Executive Excellence, 17(6), 6-7.
global Fortune 100 company to guide the Miles, R., Snow, C., Mathews, J., Miles, G., hinrichs@geneseo.net.
redesign of the global HR function. The & Coleman, H. (1997). Organizing in
approach gained purchase because the the knowledge age: Anticipating the
organization demanded an approach that cellular form. Academy of Management
could support aggressive growth and inno- Executive, 11 (4), 7-19
vation while providing global consistency Nadler, D., Gerstein, M., & Shaw, R. (1992).
and local responsiveness. Organizational architecture: Designs for
changing organizations. San Francisco:
Conclusion Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. (1997).
An enhancement of organizational design Competing by design: The power of organi-
is called for to provide efficiency and zational architecture. New York: Oxford
effectiveness in global dynamic environ- University Press, Inc.
ments as we shift to a knowledge age. Pasmore, W. A. (1988). Designing effective
Org2 Design provides a growth oriented, organizations: The socio-technical systems
practical framework to guide organizational perspective. New York: John Wiley &
designers at any piece of the organization. Sons, Inc.
By building on solid theory and providing a Seiling, J.G. (1997). The membership
practical application, organizational design- organization: Achieving top performance
ers should be encouraged to become more through the new workplace community.
organic. Palo Alto: Davies-Black Publishing.
Simons, Robert. (2005). Levers of organiza-
References tional design. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Anderson, P. (1990). Complexity theory Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture.
and organization science. Organization American Psychologist, 45 (2), 109-119.
Science, 10 (3), 216-232. Stacey, R. (1996, May/June). Management
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. and the science of complexity: If organi-
(1995). The boundaryless organization: zational life is nonlinear, can business
Breaking the chains of organizational strategies prevail? Research Technology
structure. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Management, 39 (3), 8-10.
Publishers. Waterman, R. H. Jr., Peters, T. J., &
Burton, M.B., DeScanctis, G., & Obel, B. Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not
(2006). Organizational design: A step-by- organization. Business Horizons, 23 (3),
step approach. Cambridge: Cambridge 14-27.
University Press.
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex
organizations. Reading, MS: Addison-
Wesley Publishing, Co.

Copyright © 2009 by the Organization Development Network, Inc. All rights reserved.

Organic Organizational Design 11