Organization Structures
The mechanistic view of an organization began with the industrial revolution. The view is a reflection of society's radical change from a rural agricultural base to one more impersonally based on centralized urban industry employing great numbers of people. The first changes began in the late 1600's and early 1700's with rudimentary machines replacing manual labor or accomplishing things not previously possible because of size, weight, or sheer numbers. The greatest industrial growth was during the 1800's period, which was exponential at its end and the outset of our century.
The view and metaphorical analogy of an organization as a machine was the result of the only frame of reference available at that time, and is anchored in the conditions then prevalent, large numbers of un- or semi-educated people aggregating into centers clustered around factories. When the view is combined with what business organizations are designed to do -- take raw materials and convert them as quickly and efficiently as possible into commercial products that will make a profit -- the comparison of organization to machine is easily made and readily apparent. As in the new machines available during the industrial revolution, organizations can be seen as composed of many "parts" which are the individual people and/or business departments (milling, stamping, forging, assembly, etc.). Any of which can be changed, modified, or replaced individually or totally.
The hierarchical, pyramidal representation also coincides with the machine where one part is crucial (power source), diffusing downward through power shafts which turn various wheels (departments) with many cogs (people) that produce something. The metaphor of ...
... middle of paper ...
...nd technology. Strategy affects organization design in that structure should change as an organization's strategy changes. Size affects organization design because as organizations grow, they tend to become more formalized and bureaucratic. Finally, technology affects organization design because the production process should fit with the type of organization structure in order to be effective.
REFERENCES
Gareth Jones - Organizational Theory, Design, and Change Fourth Edition Pearson Education International - 2004
Mechanistic Organizations, http://www.familypages.net/dawn/mechanistic.htm (accessed 16 March 2006)
http://ollie.dcccd.edu/mgmt1374/book_contents/3organizing/org_process/org_process.htm (accessed 16 March 2006)
Organic vs Mechanistic Structures
http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/organic_vs_mechanistic_structure.htm (accessed 16 March 2006)
The time of the Industrial Revolution allowed little room for smaller companies to make a name because the big businesses had monopolies over certain areas of industry. Therefore, for a person to make a name for himself, he had to do so with ambition, money, reputation, and inner strength. By reason of an owner not possessing these qualities, then by the rigors of business owning he would be mentally crushed by the amount of work that falls upon the owner's shoulders. In addition, even though labor came cheaply to t...
While introducing the sociology of C. Wright Mills, Frank W. Elwell (2006) explained Mill’s conception of a power elite that dominates modern industrial societies, like America. According to Mills, present day societies host a small and unified group, called the power elite. The power elite holds enormous power because they are in control of the major bureaucratic organizations that currently dominate modern societies (p. 10). Mill’s perspective strongly emphasized the ongoing rationalization process and how this was related to the intensifying bureaucratization process that has shaped social structures and social organization. The processes of rationalization and bureaucratization have deeply affected many societies and Mills argued that these
Perrow, C. (1973), “The short and glorious history of organisational theory”, Organisational Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 1, pg.2-15
Finally, we have to admit that there are no blade edge differences in organizational structures. A highly mechanistic organization may adopt some organic structure if it needs. For example, an organization may have a strictly formalized finance and human resources divisions while having an innovative marketing and product development divisions. Based on changing needs, a balanced between mechanistic structure and organic structure will help organization control its organizational assets, devise its tactical and strategic plans, and as a result, increase market share while gaining competitive advantage over its competitors.
Managerialism focuses on organizations as the basis, or unit of analysis of society, to which all other aspects of society are subordinate to. These organizations use their resources in an attempt to dominate each other and society. Managerialism tells us that power is concentrated among a group of elites who control organizations, and use them as an instrument to gain more power and expand their realm of control. Organizational power is increasingly the most important force that explains the direction of change in both state and society (Alford and Friedland, p.174). Thus, elites are becoming the most important factor that determines our society, and do not serve the full interests of society, but rather attempt to manipulate the masses to better serve itself.
Boje, D. M. , Luhman, J. T. , and Cunliffe, A. L. “ A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization
A society of organizations is one in which organizations enter our lives as influential forces in a great many ways — in how we work, what we eat, how we get educated and cured of our illnesses, how we get entertained, and how our ideas are shaped’ (Henry Mintzberg 1989)
Many comparisons can be made between the two theories, such as the mechanisation, fragmentation and specialisation of work and that a lack of intellectual or skilled content will speed up the work at hand. Fordism's mechanisation of mass production further emphasised many of Taylor's popular beliefs about management being divorced from human affairs and emotions, using 'humans as instruments or machines to be manipulated by their leaders' (Hersey p.84). Fordism fused and emphasised the scientific methods to get things done by Ford's successful mass-production processes. Contrasts also exist between the two theories. Fordism dehumanisied the worker whereas scientific management convinced the workers that their goals could be readily achieved along with their employers goals, therefore they should all work together in this direction. Fordism suited industrial companies participating in mass production, whereas Scientific Management could be used in many types of organisation. Large companies such as Ford Motors, The Reichskuratorium fur Wirtschaftkichkeit (RKW) in Germany examples these theories in practice. These theories of the past are lessons for the way modern organisations are run today. Managers now realise that they should treat their workers more democratically and since the mid-70's, sweeping changes in markets and technology have encouraged managers and manufacturers to use greater product diversity and more flexible methods of production. Movements towards a more flexible organisation have become apparent. Examples of orgainisations such as Nissan, NASA and Toyota serve as modern day examples of post-Fordism and depict movement towards a modified Scientific Management.
The Different Ways Organizations Can Be Structured and Operated There are four major ways a company - organization can be structured and operate. P.C.G (o) Ltd I would dare say that is structured and operates with the functional structure. In order to make it clear and understandable I am analyzing here below the four ways that organizations can structure and operate. We will observe that all four structures have there advantages and disadvantages. In order also to assist you understand better the differences of the four ways that organizations can be structured see in Page 4 & 5 Figures 1,2,3 which are the layout of the organization charts for each structure: 1.
Roger Kaufman’s Organizational Elements Model (OEM) consists of five parts: inputs, processes, products, outputs, and outcomes. Every organization, whether it be an educational or business setting, is made up of these five elements. The OEM is a framework for organizations to relate organizational efforts, organizational results, and societal payoffs or consequences (Cost-Consequence Analysis, 90). The OEM may also be divided into two different levels. The first level shows "What Is" and the second level shows "What Should Be".
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., Donnelly, J.H., & Konopaske, R. (2009). Organizations: Behaviors, structure, processes (13th ed.) New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
The beginnings of the traditional and learning organizations start with the characteristics of the organizations. Within these organizations, there are some main characteristics of each one that sets them apart.
The classical school of organization theory dominated administrations from the early 1900’s well into the 1930’s, and it is still relevant today in many of the contemporary organization theories. Shafritz states that classical organization theory was the first theory of its kind, and serves as the foundation of other schools organization theory (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2011, p. 32). Classical organization theory includes scientific management approach, bureaucratic approach, and administrative management approach. Several major theorists of classical organization were Adam Smith, Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and Luther Gulick.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall