Organisation Analysis: Organic and Mechanistic Perspectives

Organisation Analysis: Organic and Mechanistic Perspectives

Introduction

Bureaucratic organisations are defined by the way they organise their employees using systems of roles rather than the people themselves (Maravelias and Hansson, 2005, p. 4). Normally, employees in such an organisation have different roles that they must play. A set of restrictive rules and guidelines sustain order by defining the roles of the workers. In contrast, the post bureaucratic organisation changed the way that companies looked at these employee roles. While the bureaucratic organisations used employee abilities to give them their roles, the post-bureaucratic organisations gamble on their workers and give them roles based on their potential (Maravelias and Hansson, 2005, p. 4). Using this system, companies have become networks instead of hierarchies involving employees of all levels in important processes such as planning and decision-making. Since its introduction, the post-bureaucratic organisation has created quite a buzz and become the subject of a lot of academic discourse. The post-bureaucratic organization structure is a better option for modern firms because it incorporates all of the employees in key processes and values them more than the older structures.

The analysis in this paper will start with an overview of both bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic organisations. This will then be followed by the section that discusses the post-bureaucratic organisation in the modern world. The first part of this section will outline the organic and mechanistic perspectives. The next part will then dissect the value of the post-bureaucratic organisation within the context of the two perspectives in a bid to prove the main argument of the paper.

Bureaucratic and Post-Bureaucratic Structures

Before the introduction of post-bureaucratic structures, bureaucratic organisation had been the mainstay for most corporations and firms. McKenna, Garcia-Lorenzo and Bridgman (2010, p. 190) argue that for more than a century, bureaucracy had been the dominant type of organisation. However, a number of issues and practices related to it have made companies seek other options. One of the main problems associated with bureaucratic systems is an obsession with rules and guidelines. McKenna, Garcia-Lorenzo and Bridgman (2010, p. 190) claim that this obsession makes workers less enthusiastic causing poor customer service and a resistance to innovation and change, two critical aspects for the future success of a corporation. Bureaucracies were designed for cases that required many standardized operations but changing situations in the world forced a review of the system.

Many scholars and critics produced works that claimed to foresee the fall of bureaucracy and hierarchy within organisation structures. The 1990s saw writers discuss the emergence of a new type of organization structure that bore little reference to the traditional bureaucratic systems, with some even going as far as to describe it using the word utopian (Hodgson, 2004, p. 83). Most people hailed the emergence of these new systems, arguing that they were the way forward for organisational structures. In the post-bureaucratic systems, the entire workforce of the firm bore responsibility for the company’s success. Hodgson (2004, p. 83) traces the emergence of the post-bureaucratic structures to proceedings that took place over the 1990s and 1980s. One of these events was the discovery of corporate culture by popular management in the 1980s. Another relevant proceeding was the promotion of the enterprise culture within the same decade. However, the key factor behind the decline of the bureaucratic organisation structure was the fact that it was full of dysfunctions and inefficiencies (Hodgson, 2004, p. 83).

Bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic structures are distinguished by a number of distinct features that they each have. One key difference between the two relates to the roles that employees have within the firm. In a bureaucratic system, decisions are made by the figures that occupy authoritative positions (Hodgson, 2004, p. 84). The decision makers do not consult junior employees when making these key choices for the firm. Alternatively, post-bureaucratic organisations involve their employees in the decision making process by utilizing institutionalized dialogue (Hodgson, 2004, p. 84).

Bureaucratic organisations are also known for the emphasis that they place on rules and protocols. This makes their operations and structure become quite rigid. In contrast, post-bureaucratic organisations focus more on the goals and missions of the company. This means that the firm is normally willing to overlook a few rules to guarantee success (Hodgson, 2004, p. 84). Lastly, bureaucratic organisations usually prefer to maintain normalcy and avoid making too many changes. Conversely, organisations with a post-bureaucratic structure expect, anticipate and welcome change. For firms with this kind of structure, change and innovation are just some of the factors that enhance growth and success (Hodgson, 2004, p. 84).

Significance of a Post-Bureaucratic Organisation in the Current Environment

Modern firms have changed the way that they perceive their employees and the workplace. In the bureaucratic world, companies did not care about aspects of their employees that did not relate to the workplace. Most companies disregarded issues such as personality traits, personal relationships, hobbies and other aspects that did not involve the workplace (Maravelias and Hansson, 2005, p. 5). However, companies now consider all of these issues and attributes to be relevant to how an employee performs and are beginning to pay attention to them. Maravelias and Hansson (2005, p. 5) argue that modern firms now consider the “whole man”, paying special attention to the potential that the person has of becoming something bigger. Because of these new demands, the post-bureaucratic organisational structure has been seen to suit companies better than its predecessor. Both structures have specific organisational perspectives that fit them and that can be used to analyse them to create an understanding of how they fit modern corporations.

Analysts apply two main perspectives when analysing organisations. The first perspective is the mechanistic perspective, which considers companies to be machines. Proponents of this view claim that machines are supposed to be dependable, effective, easy to control and dedicated to specific tasks (Muller, 2003, p. 36). The same argument can be made of a company. The people at the top of the command chain control the company. Workers each have their own roles and carry out dedicated tasks, like the different parts of a machine. The stable nature of the company matches the predictable demands of the clients. The mechanistic perspective falls within the bureaucratic organisation structures and many companies preferred to use this system before new systems were ushered in during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries (Morgan, 2007, p. 16).

Analysts also use the organic perspective to scrutinize different organisational structures that corporations use. In the organisation structure, scholars consider corporations to be biological creatures. Through this assumption, they argue that companies bear the same defining traits as animals. This means that they are living, breathing creatures that exist in an environment with which they interact (Van Wyk, n.d.). Additionally, this perspective argues that companies are in direct competition with each other for limited resources meaning that only the strongest ones will survive. For this reason, adaptation and evolution are important aspects of a corporation’s survival, growth and development. Within this view, the environment in which a firm operates is one of the most important forces that the firm deals with. The company needs to focus on surviving within this environment (Van Wyk, n.d.).

One of the best qualities of the post-bureaucratic structure is that it focuses more on skill and talent than on hierarchy and power. Within this system, peer review processes are used to determine the appraisal of employees (Hodgson, 2004, p. 84). The organisation rewards workers who it considers more valuable, hardworking and loyal. Most companies that use organic organization tend to have highly skilled staff, with abilities and skills that the company highly values. This means that it is important for the company to acknowledge the value of the employees through various means. The fact that these companies care more about their workers also makes it likely that their workers will be more loyal to them. This is especially the case if the employees feel that they are satisfied with the work that they are doing for their company along with the returns that they are getting (McKenna, Garcia-Lorenzo and Bridgman, 2010, p. 190).

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory helps to explain the main idea behind companies caring for their employees. According to the theory, the satisfaction of an employee’s lower needs such as the physical and safety needs acts as a motivating factor (Psichogios, 2012). Going with this theory, companies will want to make sure that their workers are satisfied with their living and their working conditions so that they can get the high output levels. From my own working experience, most employers tend to make sure that their workers are paid well and on time as a way of inspiring them to work harder. This fits Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory and it is also the same system that most post-bureaucratic organisations apply.

The decentralized decision-making structure of post-bureaucratic organisations makes it easier for them to operate (Gitman and Daniel, 2009, p. 190). Two key features of this system stand out. Firstly, information relevant to the operation of the company is shared to all members of the company. This means that employees are constantly informed. Secondly, decisions are not made at the top; rather an agreement is normally reached by dialogue between workers and supervisors (Hodgson, 2004, p. 84). This kind of system ensures that the firm is well informed and therefore capable of making the best decision possible. This issue ties in with the organic perspective in some ways. Because the firm shares a lot of information with its employees, internal trust is an issue of grave importance. There is a need to make sure that the needs of the employees are well catered for to deter them from diverging sensitive information about the company (Hodgson, 2004, p. 84).

Law firms are a good example of companies that share a lot of information with their employees. According to Everett-Nollkamper (2004, p. 7), some law firms use a democratic system to make decisions, where all of the attorneys in the company vote on key issues. This system is a good example of a post-bureaucratic organisational structure in practice. Details concerning ongoing cases and issues are usually accessible by most of the firm’s employees and the company places a high level of trust in them not to share the information. Such a system works best for firms that have a small number of employees because the reduced numbers mean that the democratic model cannot become chaotic.

Using the organic perspective to analyse the post-bureaucratic organisation, it can be argued that the most important aspect of this structure is that it pays attention to its environment. The environment is a very important factor that a company needs to consider in its operations (Flora and Flora, 2007, p. 30). For a basic company, the environment refers to a wide range of factors such as the clients, competitors, employees, market and others that must be put into consideration. One of the reasons why the post-bureaucratic organisation works well with the environment is that it is primed for change. The structures high level of adaptability makes it possible for it to change freely and match any changes that happen in the environment (Grey, 2005, p. 95).

The Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest can help explain the relationship between a company and its environment. Much like the species that Darwin described, companies exist in an environment that is very limited. Market, space and capital are all resources that exist in limited supply and that the companies have to compete for. The advantage that post-bureaucratic organisations gain from their structure is that they are primed for change, which is in stark contrast to the bureaucratic organisations that are set up with constancy in mind (Hodgson, 2004, p. 84). The adaptable nature of post-bureaucratic organisations makes it easier for them to make changes to their structure that match the prevailing environment. Changes in areas such as demand and technology can easily be matched. Technology companies are a good example of companies that adapt quickly. They are built around flexibility and speed by having few formalities. This way innovation drives the company forward as the management encourages the employees to break boundaries. The recent Smartphone wars between Samsung and Apple have been a good indicator of this innovation in practice. Through different media on the internet, I have come to learn that the major driving factor behind the success of Samsung and Apple has been the ability to change quickly and adapt to innovations such as new mobile platforms.

Conclusion

Scholars have for a very long time considered the post-bureaucratic organisation to be the successor of the bureaucratic one. Within the past few decades, the bureaucratic organisation has been seen to contain a range of faults and shortcomings that would make it difficult to survive in the modern world. The introduction of the post-bureaucratic structure was seen to be a remedy of the situation, with a range of firms choosing to apply to this new system. From the organic perspective, the post-bureaucratic organisation is an excellent structure as it pays attention to all the important aspects of a company such as the employees’ needs, the skills and abilities of the workers and the decision making structure of the company. The fact that it involves its employees in the decision making process of the firm also makes the post-bureaucratic structure better at running modern day corporations.

 

 

 

References

Flora, W F & Flora B H 2007, ‘Viewing academic leaders: organizational theory and perspectives’, The John Ben Shepperd Journal of Practical Leadership, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 28-34.

Gitman, L J, & McDaniel, C D 2009, The future of business: the essentials, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH.

Grey, C 2005, A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organization, SAGE, London.

Hodgson, D E 2004, ‘Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization’, Organization, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 81-100

Maravelias, C & Hansson, J 2005, ‘Freedom in the age of post-bureaucracy: The example of strategic occupational health’, in Paper for the 4th International Critical Management Studies Conference, Judge Institute of Management, University of Cambridge, UK, pp. 1-14.

McKenna, S, Garcia-Lorenzo, L & Bridgman, T 2010, ‘Managing, managerial control and managerial identity in the post-bureaucratic world’, Journal of Management Development, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 128-136.

Morgan, G 2007, Images of organization, SAGE Publ., Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.].

Muller, R 2003, Communication of information technology project sponsors and managers in buyer-seller relationships, Dissertation.com, [S.l.].

Nollkamper, P E 2004, Fundamentals of law office management: systems, procedures, and ethics, Thomson/Delmar Learning, Clifton Park, NY,

Psichogios, P 2012, 6 major theories of motivation and the implications for employee recognition and engagement, CSIinternational, viewed 29 November 2013, < http://www.csi-international-inc.com/experience-exchange-blog/employee-engagement-motivation.html>

Van Wyk, G n.d., Gareth Morgan’s organisational metaphors, Systems thinking Canada, viewed 27 November 2013, <http://www.systems-thinking.ca/myfiles/GarethMorgan.pdf>

 

Last Completed Projects

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]