The Comparison of Brain-Like and Mechanistic Organizations - Essay Example

Brain-like organisations, their difference from mechanistic organisations, and their need in the context of organisational learning A metaphor likenstwo phenomena with shared properties (Easterby-Smith et al, 1999). Morgan (2006:4) sees metaphors as more than mere embellishing devices as they imply a way of thinking and seeing that pervades our conceptions. Metaphors are images through which organisational structures and processes can be better understood including learning. Organisations can be likened to a machine or brain etc. but Morgan (2006) believes they cannot be described, explained and understood by a single theory alone. Rather, “Organisations are many things at once” (p.337). As machines, organisations are based on the “one best way to organise” (Morgan, 2006: 27) principle. Morgan (2006) points out, mechanistic organisations involve mechanical and repetitive work, and workers in such organisations are expected to function like machinery in routine but efficient, reliable and predictable ways. Smith (1776, cited in Morgan, 2006) emphasizes that efficiency is attainable by specialization of labour, which reduces worker discretion. Weber (1947, cited in Morgan, 2006) discovered that “the bureaucratic form routinizes the process of administration exactly as the machine routinizes production” (p.17). Thus, bureaucratic organisations flourished in the era of industrial mechanization. Weber characterized them as official functions bounded by rules and regulations with hierarchical structures in which jobs are allocated based on orders and professions. Mechanistic operation also features in Taylor’s (1911, cited in Morgan, 2006) ideas of scientific management who after studying industrial organisation decided to ‘rationalise’ manual labour through the analysis and standardisation of activities. Similarly, Fayol (1949, cited in Morgan, 2006: 18) emphasised management as a process of “planning, organisation, command, co-ordination and control”. This machine-like metaphor is still demonstrated in the fast-food industry where there are standard and highly controlled ways of preparing and serving food. It also exists in places where “… precision and safety are a high priority …” (Morgan, 2006: 28) as in flight cabins and surgical wards. Many courier firms like DHL similarly receive, handle and despatch mail using established methods and routes. In short, mechanistic approaches tend to work well “when there is a straightforward task to perform” (Morgan, 2006, p.27); when the environment is stable and predictable, uniform products are supplied through mass production by applying a repetitive set of procedures, and where precision and efficiency are critical. However, mechanistic approaches are inappropriate when these conditions are absent, or exist only to a limited extent. Furthermore, they “can create organisational forms that have difficulty in adapting to changing circumstances”. (Morgan, 2006, p.28) Because they are designed with predetermined objectives and goals, they cannot thrive where innovation is necessary. Contrary to Weber’s (1947) views, mechanistic approaches also lead to bureaucratic structures that exhibit problems such as ignoring important issues, ineffective communications, organisational inertia, management short-sightedness etc. Thus, operating mechanistically is becoming less common. The Royal Mail traditionally operated this way, but is now developing a more responsive organisational culture due to the deregulated postal market (Wellin, 2007). Studying the brain, “the most highly coordinated and intelligent system” (Morgan, 1997:74), offers useful insight into how information can be processed, stored and retrieved flexibly and creatively. Its holographic structure wherein all parts function harmoniously and contain the whole has important lessons and implications (see Morgan, 2006, p.97). For example, the simultaneous ability for logical reduction and creative expansiveness, minute specialisation and distributed function, and variety yet coherent patterning can be applied to organisations. The brain metaphor offers clearer guidelines for effective organisational learning, and shows how flexibility in responding to the shifting environment is possible through knowledge creation and innovation. (Harrison, 2002, p.45) It is also useful in understanding and allowing self-organization not constrained by a centralised and hierarchical system, and seeing how information technology can be used to assist the evolution of intelligence rather than control structures as it offers a powerful means “to support the development of learning organizations” (Morgan, 1998, p.116). However, the brain metaphor suggests, for effective organisational learning, leadership must be more diffused, the process not single-looped, and “hierarchy, design, and strategic development must be approached and understood as self-organizing, emergent phenomena” (Morgan, 1998, p. 108). Functioning as a brain also enables the organisation to self-organise, have networked intelligence, benefit from double-loop learning, anticipate changes etc. (Morgan, 1998, p.102-103) Hewlett Packard is well known for its strong culture. It emphasises values, objectives, and strategies, and can be likened to a brain-like organisation. Its values encourage respect, achievement, teamwork, flexibility etc., its objectives are essentially guiding principles, and its strategies also promote learning. Despite the strengths of the brain metaphor, there are also practical difficulties. For example, organisational learning could conflict with organisational power and control structures, culminating in a breakdown of order because it requires “a degree of openness and self-criticism that is foreign to traditional modes of management” (Morgan, 1998, p.117). Organisational learning is not considered undesirable; rather there is reluctance for trusting ‘self-organization’, and the potential loss of control. Thus, creating learning opportunities is good in theory, but in practice there are instabilities if too much or rapid change occurs. Organizational learning is itself a metaphor “derived from our understanding of individual learning” (Starkey et al., 2004, p.29). Thus, it is individual learning that culminates in organizational learning, so it is necessary to grasp individual learning theories. Starkey (2004) describes a holistic model of organizational learning that regards learning “as increasing an organization’s capacity to take effective action” (p.39). Learning is clearly an intentional process that spans “across functional boundaries, between departments and through status levels…within the whole organization” (Pedler et al., 1998, p.18). Learning may be ‘adaptive’ to respond to changes, or ‘generative’, requiring new ways of perceiving the world (Mabey, 1994, p.5). Learning helps organizations gain the flexibility and skills necessary to adapt and survive, but learning moreover enriches all stakeholders in the enterprise (Pedler et al., 1998, p.16). Finding “the right balance between too much and too little structure will be a key to having the adaptive capabilities to survive” (Senge, 2006, p.274). Organizations learn by supporting the growth and development of individuals, not getting complacent, and striving for continuous improvement i.e. when it “… consciously transforms itself and its context” (Pedler et al, 1991) positively. Individuals within organizations “continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire… [and] new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured…” (Senge, 1990, p.1) through innovating (Pedler et al., 1998, p.7). By learning, organizations emphasise change, adaptability, and utilizing new knowledge to detect and fill gaps between theory and effective practice (Denton, 1998, p.1). The learning process is also characterized by being financially conservative, environmentally sensitive, “held together by a strong sense of corporate identity” (De Geus in Pedler et al. 1998, p.8), ability to anticipate change, and being “tolerant of experiments at the margin” (ibid). A comparison of mechanistic and brain-like organizations highlights fundamental differences in structure and approach. Whereas mechanistic organizations have a centralized and hierarchical system, and clearly defined goals and objectives, they are prone to inertia as far as organizational learning is concerned, and therefore hard to adapt. They also tend to dehumanize employees who become mindless and unquestioning (Morgan, 1998, p.29), so there is no motivation to improve things. Xerox promoted learning but failed due to adopting a single rather than brain-like double loop learning process (Argyris, 1999, p.438). In contrast, brain-like organizations constantly learn and evolve because they are designed to. The mechanistic processes of organisational structure and functioning show that while this approach suits certain conditions (see Morgan, 1998, p.27), contemporary demands require more open, adaptive-to-change, and receptive-to-learning type organisations. “Mechanically structured organizations have great difficulty adapting to changing circumstances because they are designed to achieve predetermined goals; they are not designed for innovation” (Morgan, 1998, p.28). Therefore, brain-like organisations are necessary for creativity and innovation to thrive. They also have regenerative capacities (Morgan, 1998, p.101). The limitations of this type of structure however suggest that although a sense of harmonious power relationships, order, control and direction are essential, as found strongly in mechanistic organisations, a more brain-like structure and set of processes can truly make the organisation learn better and evolve. Also, organizational learning is derived from individual learning (Stakey et al., 2004), and the brain is inextricably involved with the whole process. So, a complete understanding relies “on a comprehensive knowledge of the biochemistry and genetic make-up of the human brain” (Easterby-Smith, 2003, p.21) as organizational learning is embedded in the brain. The way it organizes and manages information and communicates that information is exemplary for progressive organisations to learn from. References Argyris, Chris. 1999. On organizational learning. Second edition. Wiley-Blackwell. Denton, John. 1998. Organisational learning and effectiveness. Routledge. Taylor and Francis Group. Easterby-Smith, M., Araujo, L. and Burgoyne, J. (1999) Organizational learning and the learning organization: developments in theory and practice. London: Sage. Easterby-Smith, Mark and Lyles, Marjorie A (Ed’s). 2003. The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management. Wiley-Blackwell. Harrison, Roger and Reeve, Fiona. 2002. Supporting Lifelong Learning: Organising learning. Routledge. Mabey, Christopher and Iles, Paul. 1994. Managing Learning. Cengage Learning. March, J and Olsen, J. 1975. The uncertainty of the past: organizational learning under ambiguity. European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 3, pp.147-171. In Starkey, 2004. Morgan, Gareth. 2006. Images of Organization. London, Sage Publications. Morgan, Gareth. 1998/1986. Images of Organization. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications. Pedler, M and Aspinwall, K. 1998. A Concise Guide to the Learning Organisation. London: Lemos and Crane. Senge, Peter. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday. Starkey, Ken et al. 2004. How organizations learn: managing the search for knowledge. Cengage Learning. Wellin, M. (2007) Managing the psychological contract: Using the Personal Deal to Increase Business Performance. Hampshire: Gower. Zohar, Danah. 1997. Rewiring the Corporate Brain. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Read More