Introduction
There are different management theories and models that managers can use to manage their organizations. One of these models is the mechanistic perspective, which views an organization as a machine and people working in it as machine parts (Godwyn and Gittell, 2012). This management perspective is tightly controlled, and employees have limited room for personal inputs. The structured manner through which organizations using this perspective are managed prevents the incorporation of new knowledge into an organization through learning. According to Lipshitz, Popper and Friedman (2007), organizational learning is the process through which groups and individuals learn within an organization. The practices that lead to learning within an organization require some freedom on the part of employees to include creativity in their work. Since organizations using the mechanistic perspective have a definite means of carrying out tasks, with structured and controlled channels of communication, learning is not likely to occur. This paper will explore how mechanistic and bureaucratic organizations might struggle to encourage organizational learning. To achieve this objective, the essay will evaluate different theories related to the mechanistic perspective such as Frederick Taylors’ theory of management, Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy, Paul du Gay’s perspective on bureaucracy and George Ritzer’s MacDonaldization theory. In addition, the paper will explore learning models such as the brain metaphor, Kolb’s learning cycle and quantum theory in relation to organizational learning. Finally, the paper will critically analyze the relationship between the mechanistic and bureaucratic perspective and organizational learning.
Frederick Taylor came up with the scientific management theory that enabled people to organize resources and create new technologies in the 20th century. The scientific management theory reinforced the mechanistic approach to organizational management in various ways. First, the theory advocated for the division of labor based on expertise. This division was carried out by the manager and then passed on to the worker with the expertise. The responsibility of organizing work was, therefore, transferred from the worker to the manager. Secondly, Taylor asserted that there was only one way of carrying out a task. Tasks were scientifically examined to determine the most efficient method. Thirdly, the selection and training of employees were done using scientific methods. This theory established hierarchies and supervision to ensure that the established efficiency standards were maintained. Through the hierarchies, responsibilities and authority were distributed to various supervisors and managers.
Max Weber advocated for bureaucracy as the most efficient way through which human activities could be accomplished. According to Weber, the best form of bureaucracy had strict hierarchies, power rested in positions, appointments were based on expertise and rules and regulations governed the management (Tompkins, 2005). One evident similarity between Weber’s theory and Taylor’s scientific management theory is the existence of hierarchies. This theory used the means-to-end rationality where the end justified the means.
Paul du Gay’s contribution to bureaucracy was in the form of defending bureaucracy. Unlike in the past, bureaucracy has received criticism, especially because of its inability to accommodate change. The negative connotations that have been associated with bureaucracy in the recent past have emerged because of the dynamics organizations are experiencing. These changes have been difficult in organizations that are bureaucratic and mechanistic. However, Paul du Gay strongly defended bureaucracy by highlighting some of its befits. Gay argues that hierarchies are useful because they clarify accountability and responsibility. Secondly, job specialization leads to a successful working process and efficiency. In addition, Gay asserts that operating rules and procedures clarify expectations that guide workers to achieve the expected results. Moreover, impersonality, which is found, in bureaucratic organizations reduces bias and subjectivity, which leads to fair treatment of all employees.
George Ritzer came up with a theory known as MacDonaldization theory. This theory asserts that the Weber’s rationalization theory has persisted up to date. Ritzer questions some aspects of McDonaldization theory such as efficiency, predictability, calculability and control. Ritzer discredits the efficiency processes used by organizations such as fast-foods because they force customers to provide free labor through self-service. He criticizes calculability because it reduces the product and service processes to numbers and replace quality with quantity. The predictability aspect of MacDolnadization customizes customer interactions and creates predictable products and customer behavior. The tight control of maims production quality by replacing humans with technology.
The brain metaphor is a comparison between the functions of the human brain and organizational learning. The brain functions as an information processing system where varying information is received, interpreted and assigned meaning. Likewise, an organization receives information from its environment and must process it and take action appropriately. According to Shelton and Darling (2003), managers must be able to think paradoxically, especially in the modern dynamic environments. Once they are able to think paradoxically, they can initiate the thinking process among employees, which can lead to learning. The biggest advantage of using the right hemisphere is that it can solve problems faster. Another learning that takes place in the brain is through experimentation, emotions, creativity and mistakes. Likewise, organizational learning occurs best when experimentation is allowed, the emotional part of people appreciated and mistakes used as a basis for learning.
To understand how learning occurs in an organization, it is essential to explore learning models that explain the process of learning. One of these models is Kolb’s learning cycle. This cycle describes the process through which organizational learning takes place. The first stage when organizational learning occurs is through personal experience or other people’s experience (Kolb, 1984). The second stage in the cycle involves a reflection process where an individual or group reflects on the link between theory and experience. This stage is known as reflective observation. The next stage is known as abstract conceptualization. At this stage, people in the organization compare organizational theory using multiple perspectives. Active experimentation is the next stage in the cycle. This stage involves the application of theory to future practices after learning its relevance.
Another theory that has a significant relevance to organizational learning is quantum theory. This theory characterizes the world as subjective, dynamic, and self organizing. The theory provides seven skills that help organizational leaders to examine their mental models and increase their organizations’ capacity to learn. One of these skills is quantum thinking, which is the ability of people in an organization to think paradoxically. This skill is derived from quantum physics research that indicates that the world is paradoxical and illogical. This theory advocates for the management of an organization from the view that it is illogical, nonlinear, dynamic and irrational. The theory, therefore, advocates for management practices based on contingencies and not on predetermined fixed methods.
From the analysis of theories related the mechanistic perspective and learning theory, it is clear that the mechanistic perspective hinders organizational learning. From the scientific theory of management by Taylor, the responsibility of deciding how the work is to be done is transferred from the worker to the manager. This denies the worker a chance to include creativity in the work. According to Conti (2011), when employees are chosen based on their expertise, and their ability to focus on results, the organization becomes homogeneous in terms of knowledge. Employees possess similar knowledge, which limits the organizational learning capabilities. Furthermore, when employees are highly specialized as required by Taylor, Gay and Weber, there can be no need for learning since every employee is focused on their areas of expertise. This clearly shows that the mechanistic approach is likely to struggle to encourage organizational learning.
Shelton and Darling (2003) argue that organizational thinking has been affected negatively by the mechanistic approach to management. The problem with this approach is that it assumes that reality is objective, and learning can only be accomplished through scientific data analysis. This analysis is flawed because as outlined by the quantum theory, the world is subjective and dynamic. From a practical point of view, I experienced the relevance of subjectivity and people’s opinions in work situations. When I worked in a certain hotel, the number of guests who came to a conference being hosted by the hotel exceeded the number expected. This created a problem for the management because the conference room was packed and no space was left to fit in new chairs. The managers spent a lot of time thinking about the solution. One intern in the organization was carrying sets to the conference room and heard the dilemma in which the managers were. He interrupted them because he wanted to suggest a solution. The restaurant manager almost discontinued his internship because he thought no solution could be provided by an intern. However, the general manager allowed the intern to talk. The intern suggested that they should use smaller seats that would fit many people. Since the hotel had them, they were exchanged with the big ones and all the guests were accommodated. This example is consistent with the contingency theory that suggest that there is no specific way of solving a problem, but rather the solution depends on the prevailing factors at the time. Therefore, an organization that allows learning and adoption of new ideas allow subjectivity and value people’s contributions. Had such a situation occurred in a mechanistic organization, the managers would have spent a lot of time trying to resolve the issue unsuccessfully.
The double loop learning model shows that learning takes place when people can freely reflect on contexts and be able to question the appropriateness of actions. This cannot be possible in mechanistic organizations because their operations are guided by rules and regulations that cannot be questioned. Another requirement for organizational learning to take place is the ability to develop responses when new requirements arise. In mechanistic organizations, employees creativity and response capabilities are curtailed by the highly controlled environment and standardized procedure of working. Therefore, these organizations may struggle to encourage organizational learning because their environments are opposed to organizational learning requirements.
The mechanistic approach was successful in the 20th century because organizational environments were stable and functioned in a logical manner and results were predictable. Those organizations currently using the mechanistic approach are unwilling to change and continue to use the single loop learning model. This model shows that habits that have been learned over time inhibit learning. Therefore, mechanistic organizations’ structures, processes and procedures are inhibiting factors to learning. For them to encourage organizational learning, they will have to struggle because they are unwilling to change the structures, processes and procedures. A good example of how an organization that allows learning is the Springfield Remanufacturing Compay. Although not from my direct experience, I experienced the organizational situation indirectly through a friend who worked there. There was a time when truck drivers went on strike, and no steel could be delivered to the company. The company’s president asked employees to think of a way to deliver steel to the organization, without drawing the truckers’ attention. One employee suggested that the company should use school buses while another suggested using nuns to deliver the material. The president later used school buses driven by nuns and delivered steel to the company. Therefore, the operations of the company went on because the organization allowed employees to learn new ways of doing things. If the same situation happened in a mechanistic organization, the operations would have to wait until the truck drivers called off the strike.
According to the MacDolnadization theory of bureaucracy, customer service is based on the script (Miner, 2011). Employees cannot innovate new ways of solving customer problems because they have to follow the rules. Without experimentation of the best applicable practices in different situations, the employees cannot learn. Instead, they become detached to their work, lose motivation and become alienated. Such organizations that use MacDolnadization theory find it hard to implement learning within their current organizational structure and practices.
According to Hoogervorst, Koopman and Flier (2005), mechanistic organizations treat employees like instruments that can be disposed once they become obsolete. Such organizations cannot expect to implement organizational learning easily while mistreating its employees. Conner and Douglas (2005) argue that employees have needs for dominance, achievement and autonomy. Such employees learn new ideas when their personal needs have been fulfilled. This view challenges the argument by bureaucratic theories that mechanistic perspective eliminates impersonality and leads to equal treatment. Some personal perspective at work are important and can lead to the learning capabilities.
Conclusion
Taylor’s theory of scientific management, Weber’s theory of bureaucracy, Gay’s views on bureaucracy and Ritzer’s MacDonaldization theory have clearly shown that mechanistic and bureaucratic organizations are rigid and inhibit any change, including organizational learning. On the other hand, the brain metaphor model, Kolb’s learning cycle and the quantum theory, have demonstrated the ideal conditions required for organizational learning to thrive. From the information provided by the latter models and theories, the conditions that favor organizational learning are absent in mechanistic and bureaucratic organizations. In addition, several authors have attested to the negative effects of mechanistic and bureaucratic structures to organizational learning. Work standardization, strict organization structures, adherence to rules and the use of employees like machines are some of the inhibiting factors to organizational learning. Since mechanistic organizations resist change, they are unlikely to change these factors. As a result, these organizations will struggle to encourage organizational learning.
References
Conner, D.S., & Douglas, S.C. 2005. Organizationally-induced work stress: the role of employee bureaucratic orientation. Work stress, 34 (2), 210-224.
Conti, T. 2011. Panaceas for organizational disease, but better knowledge and systems thinking. The TQM journal, 23 (3), 252-267.
Hoogervorst, J.A.P., Koopman, P.L., & Flier, A. 2005. Total quality management : the need for an employee-centred coherent approach. Total quality management, 17 (1), 92-106.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: experience as the source of learning and development. London: Prentice Hall.
Shelton, C.D., & Darling, J.R. 2003. From theory to practice: using new science concepts to create learning organizations. The learning organizations, 10 (6), 353-360.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]