MECHANISTIC ORGANIZATIONS
Metaphors enable a way of thinking by drawing comparisons between items with different characteristics to emphasize similarities rather than differences. Recently, shadow chancellor George Osborne criticized Gordon Brown, stating, ‘Gordon is a man with an overdraft, not a plan’. This metaphorical statement highlights the likeness between Gordon Brown’s spending habits and an overdraft.
Different writers have used various metaphors to illustrate the structure of organizations. For example, Morgan in “Images of Organization” employs metaphors such as machine, organismic, and brain. In this essay, I will focus more on the machine metaphor. Bureaucracy refers to organizations that function like machines. According to Wikipedia.org, bureaucracy is defined as the system of rules and regulations put in place to control activity, particularly in large organizations and governments. I would describe bureaucracy as blindly following instructions without questioning, simply adhering to established procedures. Machine organizations have a hierarchical structure, with information primarily flowing from the top down. Employees are not empowered to make decisions; they are expected to obey and carry out orders. Workers’ emotions and needs are not taken into account; the main focus is on achieving predetermined goals.
In machine-like organizations, learning is limited to one side and is not a commitment embraced by the entire organization. The origin of mechanistic organization can be attributed to Frederick the Great of Prussia’s work in 1740, which revolutionized the army by implementing numerous reforms and strict rules and regulations that were to be followed without question, effectively creating an army reminiscent of a machine. Adam Smith, in 1776, praised the division of labor and increased specialization in the workplace, while another management theorist named Max Weber also supported the mechanization of organizations.
Henry Fayol, along with other classical management theorists such as F. W. Mooney and Col. Lyndall Urwick, is referred to as the father of bureaucracy. They collectively believe that management involves the processes of planning, organising, commanding, coordination, and control (Morgan 1997). Another management theorist, Fredrick Taylor, developed the principle of scientific management, which encompasses five basic management principles.
1. The manager takes on the responsibility of organizing work, while the worker focuses on implementing the tasks. Managers are involved in thinking, planning, and designing the work.
2. Utilize the scientific method to establish the most effective approach for completing tasks. Structure worker assignments accordingly, outlining the exact manner in which the work should be performed.
3. Select the appropriate person to complete the designated assignment.
Provide effective training for the worker to ensure proficient performance of their tasks.
According to Frederick Taylor’s principles, it is important to monitor worker performance in order to ensure adherence to proper work procedures and achieve desired outcomes (Morgan 1997). McDonalds, Burger King, Greggs, and other fast-food establishments serve as prime examples of these principles.
Examples of mechanistic forms of organization include car/automobile manufacturing companies like Honda, Toyota, Ford, and Mitsubishi; the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; the British High Commission in Nigeria; McDonald’s, DHL, Ford, FedEx; aircraft maintenance departments; and finance offices such as HM Customs Inland Revenue. These examples illustrate both the advantages and disadvantages of mechanistic forms of organization.
Mechanistic organizations have several advantages. They design tasks to be performed in a straightforward manner, which is especially effective in stable environments. They also encourage mass production by repeatedly producing the same product, allowing for precise work. However, according to Morgan 1997, mechanistic models are difficult to adapt to changing circumstances and lack innovation. Additionally, they can become bureaucratic, leading to clashes of interest and a dehumanizing atmosphere.
In my opinion, a mechanistic organization does not promote learning. Learning can only be successful when individuals and groups within an organization are encouraged and empowered to think and make informed decisions in their daily work. Bertalanffy introduced the concept of viewing organizations as organisms, such as using the metaphor of “Corporate DNA” and the idea of a “living company.” Microsoft attempted to develop a “digital nervous system” and generic algorithms for process management also reflect this understanding of organizational behavior.
The organismic organization, in comparison to the mechanistic metaphor, is adaptable to changing environmental factors. It allows for the full utilization of human potentials, with jobs designed to encourage personal growth and responsibility. Decision making is decentralized and communication flows throughout the organization. The organismic model views the organization as an open system in constant exchange with the environment. As a result, organizations can effectively learn from the environment by monitoring changes and redesigning their offerings to remain competitive.
An Example Tesco store, as an open system, needs to constantly interact with its environment by conducting research. This is done to identify the changes in customer preferences and requirements and to devise strategies to meet these changes by providing the necessary goods and services. The human brain is also compartmentalized and possesses immense capabilities such as adaptability, resilience, and creativity. In comparing organizations to the brain, Morgan emphasizes that their survival and effective functioning depend on the processing of information.
The objective of relating an organization to the brain is to inspire managers to design the organization in a way that enables it to learn at the same pace as the brain. This leads me to the concept of a learning organization, which was introduced by Peter Senge (1990) with the identification of five principles: System thinking, Personal mastery, mental models, Building a shared vision, and Team learning. Workers are encouraged to consider the entire system rather than just their individual roles. This type of behavior fosters team building and facilitates the sharing of knowledge, as a significant portion of an organization’s knowledge resides in individuals’ minds (commonly known as tacit knowledge).
According to cybernetic theories, a learning organization must possess the capability to monitor and predict changes in the broader environment, identify important deviations, and cultivate the capacity to question, challenge, and modify established norms and assumptions. Additionally, it should enable a suitable strategic direction and organizational pattern to naturally emerge. It is crucial for the organization to be proficient in double-loop learning to prevent getting stuck in single-loop processes, particularly those initiated by conventional management control systems and defensive routines adopted by members of the organization.
Based on the above, it can be concluded that the organizational structure has an impact on the level of learning achievable. It is widely recognized that for organizations to succeed and remain competitive, their rate of learning must match or exceed the level of activities in the surrounding environment. Therefore, it is recommended for organizations to adopt a structure that maximizes their potential for learning, while acknowledging that there is no universally ideal structure. The most suitable structure will vary based on operational nature and external circumstances.
REFERENCES:
The following books and authors are referenced:
– Burns, T. and G. M.Stalker, The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock, 1961
– Chris Argris. Organisational learning, Blackwell publishers Inc. 1992
– David Buchannan and Huczynski, Organisation Behaviour: an introductory text, 3rd edition, 1997
– Derek Rollinson. Aysen Broadfield, David J. Edwards, Organisational Behaviour and Analysis, 1998
– Gareth Morgan, Images of Organisation, Sage Publications, India. 1997
– Ivancevich Matteson, Organisational Behaviour and Management, 5th edition, 1999
– Robert Kreitner and Angelo Kinicki, Organisational Behaviour, 2nd edition, 2002
– Ralph D. Stacey, Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, 3rd edition, 2000
