This paper presents a personal career success plan developed through self-assessment and organizational behavior theory. The author identifies their professional style as best fitting Mintzberg's adhocracy configuration, characterized by cross-functional teamwork and dynamic work environments. The plan addresses key development areas including personal organization, communication with conflicting personality types, and self-restraint. The paper also explores servant leadership, Jim Collins's "Good to Great" framework, and transformational leadership as models for continuous professional development. Together, these elements form a structured roadmap for near-term behavioral improvements and long-term career advancement through ongoing formal and informal education.
A personal success plan can serve as the foundation for a successful career. In fact, there are so many qualified professionals in the workforce today that a personal success plan is more of a requirement than a luxury. With this in mind, and coupled with recent professional training, this personal success plan was prepared in several stages. I first identified that my career ambitions and working style place me in the adhocracy field of Mintzberg's organizational model. I then used this as a foundation that offered additional insights, including working to be more disciplined across different areas of my professional responsibilities, as well as learning to better manage conflict with personality types that are not naturally compatible with my own. Furthermore, I include a section outlining my dedication to continuous education, which will ensure my skills remain relevant in a continually evolving professional environment.
It is 5:00 a.m. on a Monday morning. The alarm sounds and one reaches over to press the snooze button for those "five more minutes." Now it is 5:15 a.m. and those five minutes have quickly turned into fifteen. The early morning workout awaits, along with a full schedule ahead of getting the kids ready for school and oneself ready for work.
It is now 7:40 a.m. The workout is finished and the kids are ready for school. You are headed out the door to drop them off and then on to work, arriving at 8:45 a.m. — fifteen minutes early for the typical nine-to-five. You take a moment to reflect on the building you are about to enter. You either feel a positive sense of anticipation, knowing it will be a great day, or you feel a sense of dread because you hate your job.
For a large portion of the working world, this is the daily routine. A person's work environment has a major impact on their overall outlook and everyday experience. One must ask: do I love my job? A person's personality determines the type of work environment that may be most fitting. Routine work, variety, and simplicity all play significant roles in shaping what kind of work environment suits a given personality. Henry Mintzberg broke down work structures into five distinct organizational configurations.
A simple structure is typically suited to those new to the workforce. It has the basics: top managers and operators. A machine bureaucracy caters to low-skilled, highly specialized jobs and is best suited to people who thrive on routine. A professional bureaucracy applies to personnel who possess a specialized skill set and work with a high degree of independence — such as doctors and lawyers. The divisionalized form is suited to vice presidents of organizations — people who want a measure of power but not sole responsibility. Finally, adhocracy is a work environment similar to producing a film: it does not require a single unified skill set but instead brings together personnel from different fields to create one finished product.
Having been in the workforce for approximately seven years, I am not drawn to routine work. Since the simple structure is tailored toward those new to the workforce, it is not a fitting choice. I would currently place myself in the adhocracy field. I work with personnel from all different parts of the world, each with different specializations, who come together to conduct base defense operations. I specialize in one area while my counterparts specialize in others, yet we all converge to produce one finished outcome.
Managers in the adhocracy field would seek my type of skill set. They tend to look for personnel who are not one-dimensional and who can work well with others. Knowing a little about a great many things is an asset in this environment. Each configuration that Mintzberg identifies is fitting for a different personality type. Adhocracy is the style that best fits my knowledge, experience, and personality. While I believe I could work in any other field, adhocracy is the best match.
"Applying Mintzberg to eliminate non-fitting structures"
"Strengths, weaknesses, and development priorities identified"
"Servant, Good to Great, and transformational leadership models"
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2013). Organizational behavior (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Mintzberg, H. (1981). Organization design: Fashion or fit? Harvard Business Review, 59(1), 103–116.
You’re 31% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.