Effectiveness of Mechanistic versus Organic Communication Structures in Relation to Contemporary Society - Coursework Example

Effectiveness of Mechanistic versus Organic Communication structures in Relation to contemporary society Name Course Institution Instructor June 28, 2011 Mechanistic Versus Organic Communication Structures Introduction Communication is a very important aspect in any success of a business. In definition, communication can be defined as a process of sharing information. Business communication is a goal oriented and it needs to be very effective to ensure effectiveness in the business. Organizational structure is the way in which a firm distributes its labor in specific tasks and thus achieving coordination among distributed tasks. An organizational structure tends to intervene between the organizational achievement and the goals of the firm and thus influencing the effectiveness of the organization (Brown, 1984, p 577). The functions of management can never be performed better if there is no effective communication. For an organization to be said to have an effective communication, there should be both vertical and horizontal communication in the organization. A horizontal communication is communication at the departmental level while vertical communication is communication from top to bottom level in the organizational structure. It is evident that both managerial skills and behavioral skills influence organizational effectiveness. This paper will basically distinguish the difference between organic and mechanistic organizational structure basing majorly on theorist T. Burns and Stalker’s works. According to theorists’ arguments, they are of the opinion that, organizations always need a different type of structure in order to control the activities in their organization (Simonson, 2004, p 361). To determine the organization environment, PESTEL analysis is used to ensure the environment is either stabilized or destabilized (Lewis, 2000, p 478). Other factors as much as they may be considered, important factors that are always influential in the running of an organization include the technological, political, sociological, economical, legal, and technological. An organic structure is used by organizations that are facing a dynamic and environment that are uncertain. Mechanistic structure on the other hand is used by the organizations that are in a stable operational environment. Mechanistic versus Organic Communication structure Mechanistic structure Organizations working with these structures must have some characteristics that will make them survive. The company must have a stable environment- The organization with this structure works better when the environment is stable. They must also have low tasks differentiation- There is no big difference in task as the subtask as seen to be stable and easy to manage. The departmental integration must be lower. Due to stability in their tasks, the integration within departments and other functional areas is relatively lower. This is so because the functional areas mostly do not depend on each other while the stability of tasks remains the same. The decision-making under this structure must be centralized. By being centralized means, all important decisions are made from one point (Johnson, 1973, p 597). When an environment is seen to be stable, there is always no need for making complex decisions. Environmental uncertainty and change and company size are always identified as the environmental factors have an impact on the effectiveness of organizational structures. According to some theorist, they tend to link the performance of the organization and suggest the best structure for them to ape. The decisions that are made are therefore always centralized at the top of the managerial level without really involving the lower managerial level. Having stable tasks, there is a need to standardize all the tasks taking place in the organizational structure and formalizing them so as to avoid future breakdowns. Organic structure Organizations with this type of structure always have a dynamic and environmental uncertainty. Due to the constant changing nature of the task, they need to be different to suit the changing environment making them suit various environments. There should be integration among the departments. It is necessary to have rapid communication among the departments and other functional areas. This is important especially in a complex environment so as to tighten the integrity. When the working environment is uncertain and dynamic, the decision making are decentralized (Gumucio, 2006, p 793). This means, people at the lower managerial level are also allowed to make decisions. This type of environment is always complex and thus, the decisions cannot just involve the top management alone. There is little or no standardization that is required in their tasks. Due to the dynamic environment, it is unfeasible to standardize the tasks as there is a need for balancing different subtask with others. According to theorist Burns and Stalker, they assert that, organizations must design a structure that is able to match with the uncertainty and the dynamism of the environment. Briefly, this can be put down in a chart differentiating between Organic and mechanistic structures as below; Mechanistic Organic Specialization is at the individual level and the employees perform their tasks at their own specialization Specialization is joint making employees to work together jointly The hierarchy of authority is well stipulated The integrating mechanism is complicated Centralized decision making Decentralized decision making Standardization and formalization procedures is used Mutual adjustment with proper communication method among the functional areas The communication method used is written method Communication method used is verbal The informal organization status is purely based on the empire size Informal status is on the perceived brilliance There is task correspondence whereby each person corresponds to one task The people work in various capacities. http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/organic_vs_mechanistic_structure.htm... How the communication structures relate to the contemporary society Communication is a very important device that can realize the success of an organization. Communication between managers and subordinates can be from any direction. This communication can come from the managers to the subordinates or vice versa. Communication can either be written or oral communication depending on the type of organizational structure. According to the review, there are advantages for using interactional information in order to study the communicative differences linked between mechanistic system and organic system. The second focus goes on the interaction on the single actors (Chall, 1993, p 745). According to the previous research, self-managing had an impact on the group meeting. Business communication is seen to be so much more specific as opposed to personal communication. Having business society, public and private companies view communication in an informal way. An organization need to ensure that their employees have a good communication skill to enhance business in the company. In most cases, people who have better communication skills receive a quick promotion as opposed to those who are not skilled. When analysis in an organization is viewed through interaction, there is a chance for more ideas to be suggested in the structure. Interactional analysis mostly reveals managers dominance in the relationship between the manager and the subordinates (Rosenzweig, 1974, p 302). This interaction relationship is important especially in an organic structure where there is a dynamic change. If the managers will decide to make decisions in this system without involving the subordinates, then there are high changes that the organization will miss out very important information that the subordinates could be having (Psychology comps Review, 2005 p.23). It is important if the channels of delivering information are reduced to ensure effectiveness of the information being delivered. Communication between the top management and the lower management should be enhanced as it protects the company from many challenges (Cherrington, 1994, p 601). The subordinates will be motivated if they feel that they belong to the company and their ideas are used. The managers will also be in a position to know what is happening for example if a group of employees are planning to go on strike, the management team will be able to know at an early stage and handle the issue before it gets out of hand. This also maintains the brand name of the company in that, the company is seen to accommodate every employee and this sends a right signal to the society (Eileen, 2004 p. 41).There is a high chance of the company to attract and retain qualified employees thus boosting the quality of their production. Conclusion Dualism in organic and mechanical has never been new in the philosophical thoughts. Mechanistic structures are always found more especially in societies and governmental institutions. This is because they already have defined goals and their working environment is always stable. Stalker and Burn suggested for, mechanistic system where the environment is stable and for the unstable environment, they settled for the organic structure. Most if the organizations have preferred organic structures more than mechanistic structures (Hauschildt, 2009, p 578). According to Hauschildt, the conception in mechanistic vs. organic is seen to be continuum. Most scholars have suggested that organizations that use mechanistic type of structures hinder development and innovations in the society. Organic has been suggested to be used claiming that it fosters innovation more than the other types of structures. Naturally, the world is changing and many things are also changing. The world of today cannot be compared with the world that was there in the past ten years. This means that, an organization must allow innovations to take place in the firm as most things are taking a paradigm shift. There have been other critics about the organic- mechanistic paradigm. According to Hauschildt, he insists that communication structures can move from organic to mechanistic structures. This is seen to occur in different innovation phases like from development to commercialization (Hauschildt, 2009, p 693). Whatever the structure an organization may adopt, there is a need to ensure effective communication in the company. Information should not be in one direction only; it should flow upwards, downwards, diagonally, and horizontally. Upward flow means information flowing from the subordinates to the managers while downwards means information flowing from the top management to the subordinates. Horizontal flow means flow of information among different departments and other functional areas. Diagonal information is the flow of information directly from the top person to the lower person. For example, head of one division may communicate directly with the supervisor of his department. This enhances quick delivery of the information without passing through many channels. Information that is delivered directly from the sender to the receiver is always perfect as there is no modification of the message. References: Adlam, R. 2003. Police leadership in the twenty-first century: philosophy, doctrine and developments. Oxford: Waterside Press. Brown, O. 1984. Human factors in organizational design and management: proceedings of first symposium held in Honolulu. Texas: North- Holland. Chall, P. 1993. Sociological abstracts. New Jersey: Sociological abstract Cherrington, D. 1994. Organizational behavior: the management of individual and organizational Performance. Texas: Allyn and Bacon. Gumucio, A. 2006. Communication for social change anthology: historical and contemporary readings. Chicago: Consortium, Inc. Johnson, D. 1973. Contemporary social psychology. Texas: Lippincott Lewis, p. 2000. Management Challenges in the 21st Century. New York: Thomson Learning. Rosenzweig, J. 1974. Organizational and management: a systems approach. Chicago: McGraw-Hill. Simonson, P. 2004. Mass communication and American social thought: key texts, 1919-1968. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Hauschildt, T. 2009. Effectiveness of Mechanistic versus Organic structures. Harvard: McGraw-Hill Psychology comps Review, 2005. Organizational theory. Oxford: Cengage Eileen, Z. 2004. Management control system design within its organizational context. Texas: Cengage http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDUQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.research-assistance.com%2Fpaper%2F25158%2Fa_ra_default%2Fwebers_bureaucratic_model__health_care.html&ei=ktAATrH9M8WbhQf9kOyPDQ&usg=AFQjCNHgnytr53g6LRhZ_QSre_uJPRsRkA http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEYQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmaaw.info%2FArticleSummaries%2FArtSumChenhall2003.htm&ei=ktAATrH9M8WbhQf9kOyPDQ&usg=AFQjCNFU4qso9Vb9bHzTAjQPzld_JIs3jw http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.12manage.com%2Fmethods_burns_mechanistic_organic_systems.html&rct=j&q=mechanistic%20versus%20organic%20organisational%20structures&ei=uyIETt63KMf2sgaCv_W3DA&usg=AFQjCNGtvAPOnDUS_DwHCN-2T2u3iUj84g&cad=rja http://www.analytictech.com/mb021/organic_vs_mechanistic_structure.htm... Read More