Understanding Organisations and Leadership - Essay Example

Organisations and leadership Introduction Organic organizations are modeled after their nature to survive, evolve, adapt, self-optimize and change. Sustainable balance is achieved through balancing the equilibrium between opposing forces (Gilpin & Murphy 2008). This calls for a renewing of internally opposing forces and maintaining the continuous dynamism. Organic organizations have tendencies to develop through progressive and conservative forces. This includes destroying sub organizations that are unfit for organizational environment. This suppression allows organizations to optimize operations and maximize gains. This paper aims at discussing the acceptability, functional and structural aspects that make organic organizations preferable over mechanistic organizations. In paper is structured into different sections that analyze formalism, leadership, competitiveness, and organizational environment of the organizations. Organic organizations have a tendency to evolve (Alvesson & Spicer 2011). This is driven by progressive forces and aims at creating sub organizations and individuals fit for new organizational environment. . However, complex organizations are offering alternative management style in which the leadership creates an environment in which stakeholders can participate equally and constructively (Coghlan 2006). The tensions in linear organizations exist (Stringer 2002). The form verses function tension is in existence. However, organic fashion is not perceived to be the absolute solution to the bureaucratic failures of mechanistic organizations. Lessening formalism The role played by the organic management concept introduces a strategy that makes maximum use of organizational resources (Stahl et al 2012). Progressive forces are meant to achieve the long-term interests of the organic organizations. This optimizes the long-term gains. The Riggs’s model suggests a relook into formality, centralization and ritual in organizational management. Formalism refers to the extent of congruence between realities and norms (Argyris 2010). It also describes the level of discrepancy between formal prescriptions and effective practices. However, formalism is said to be propagated by inadequate pressure in running program objectives. Formalism perceives social power to be weak when it comes to guiding bureaucratic performance (Morrill 2007). This system of organizational management states that nonlinear organization is a form of arbitrary administration. This concept suggests that changing laws has little or no impact to effective behavioral change in organizations (Noe & Noe 2012). Ritualistic processes refer to the organizational past (Alvesson & Spicer 2011). Rationalistic procedures refer to imitation of the developed societies (Laszlo & Laugel 2000). However, the challenge is in perceiving tactics as ends rather than means. The formality approach suggests that officials rarely delegate power or influence to the juniors. This means that the mechanistic organizations tend to lack shared values. Different organizational ranks have different values. The proponents of the organic organizations argue that linear organizational leadership discourages the subordinate staff from exercising delegated authority or power (Abdi 2007). The middle organizational layers shun influencing policy decisions (Laszlo & Laugel 2000). These organizations believe that over centralization leads to effectiveness (Senior & Fleming 2006). However, there is a significant difference between effective and formal power. Organic organizations are committed to adaptation and creativity (Stringer 2002). These organizations loose structure and definition. Innovative atmospheres, operational goals and organizational atmosphere must play a significant role in the organizational leadership and management (Morrill 2007). Interdependence must be tolerated while bureaucracy must be avoided (Kouzes & Posner 2002). The open organizational atmosphere allows influence to be diffused accross the organization. Decentralization of decision making Organization management must be perceived and characterized by authority and jurisdiction (Sadler 2003). However, organic organizational management cannot be separated from group decision, morale and excitement. Organic organizations use indefiniteness, ambiguity and uncontrolled communication (Abdi 2007). The tactic allows decision making process to emerge in the course of organizational learning. Every employee must feel secure (Laszlo & Laugel 2000). Decentralization of decision making process means that decision making is bottom up (Kouzes & Posner 2002). With rapidly changing business environments, the formal approach to organizational responsibilities is increasingly being perceived as wanting (Alvesson & Spicer 2011). Participation in organizational decision making is a vital ingredient in organizational setups (Argyris 2010). Organic organizations make use of different cultures and embraced diversity. In multicultural organizations where employees reflect the global cultures, organic management of organizations stands the best chance to adapt to the wave of globalization. The wave calls for inclusive decision making processes. A mere change in laws cannot alter the morale or effectives of an organization (Kouzes & Posner 2002). Traditional or mechanistic organizations argue that it is possible to evolve and adapt while retaining bureaucratic structures. This involves using training and interactive sessions to encourage employees to participate in organizational processes (Alvesson & Spicer 2011). Technology has made it possible to employees to have direct contacts with organizational top management (Noe & Noe 2012). This includes giving structures that offer chances platforms for suggestions. The pains of evolution are distributed over daily operations (Sirois 2001). The continuity of the organizations is promoted through flexible and continuous, systematic changes. While organic organizations have consultative decision making processes, mechanistic organizations tend to impose decisions and to the lower cadre employees. Organic organizational environment An organic organization seeks to establish appropriate environment to express different opinions (Abdi 2007). This process creates processes and forums that confront and harness organizational tensions. This strategy channels controversies into harmony. Reducing tension is an important aspect in the running of organic organizations (Klein & Kozlowski 2000). The leadership of an organic organization that the unique role of maintaining a healthy balance. Internal organizational battles should not be worn by either progressive or conservative forces (Alvesson & Spicer 2011). Rather, a balance should be struck. The forces should be matched against the external environment to ensure that the best combination leads to maximum organizational gains (Klein & Kozlowski 2000). Organic organizations are characterized by loose rules and horizontal specialization (Sadler 2003). The decision making process is decentralized and communications tend to flow in multiple directions (Argyris 2010). The tasks are fluid and adaptable to changing organizations. However, not all organizations can function in the said manner. Mechanistic organizations are perceived to be standardized, effective and predictable (Noe & Noe 2012). The high levels of formalization and overreliance on rules mean that decision making systems have been centralized (Klein & Kozlowski 2000). The traditional organizations resist the idea of decentralization in decision making and weak institutional framework within an organization (Abdi 2007). However, organic organizations seek to maximize development and consumer satisfaction through flexibility and professionalism. Most of organic organizations believe innovation is the heartbeat of growth (Alvesson & Spicer 2011). Innovation cannot thrive in an overly legalistic atmosphere. Therefore, some organizations prefer to remain mechanistic. Organic organizations are said to be weak in terms of hierarchies and procedures (Coghlan 2006). This creates uncertainty in organizational operations. Traditional, mechanistic organizations are predictable in their hierarchical operations (Senior & Fleming 2006). The management of organic companies believes that decision making process should involve stakeholders if productivity is to be optimized (Holbeche 2010). Organic companies are accused of complexities and low production (Bratton et al 2005). However, they have high adaptability and low stratification which gives them an edge over bureaucratic organizations. Studies show that job satisfaction is directly related to employee performance. The organic organizational management has an intention to enhance morale through participation. Most of the organic companies have reduced turnover rates, absenteeism and wellbeing (Bratton et al 2005). Organic companies has complexity is an asset to modern organizational management (Stringer 2002). The occupational specialties and training are highly enhanced in organic setups (Holbeche 2010). When complexity is coupled by decentralization, it becomes easy to ensure maximum input from individuals within an organization (Coghlan 2006). Stratification refers to the disparities between bottom and top levels in terms of prestige, mobility, salary and privileges (Jones 2001). Stratification affects teamwork. Competitiveness and Leadership aspects in organic organizations Leaders must understand that in organic setup, processes tend to unfold in unpredictable manner. Adhering to conventional command approach and control means that organizational change may not be attained (Davila et al 2007). Leaders use the organic approach to foster nonlinear outcomes in times of uncertainty (Coghlan 2006). Leadership in organic companies manages complex systems (Holbeche 2010). They are required to let go of control if organic management skills are to be fruitful (Stringer 2002). Commanding and controlling leaders are bound to fail in organic organizations (Cole 2009). In nonlinear approaches, relationships play a better role on organizational leadership (Donaldson 2001). Leaders must appreciate the limits of their control in nonlinear organizations (Hess 2007). Focusing of relationships and mutual effectiveness among workers, leaders perceive organizations to be organic. Interconnected human webs are responsible for the success of organic organizations (Stav 2003). This concept is not fully adopted by much organization. Studies indicate that the fear of the liberal nature of processes and loss of control causes hesitation (Durand 2006). Organic organizations operate on different structures compared to mechanic models (Stahl et al 2012). Most of the mechanistic organizations insist on stability and order in the conduct of their business (Coghlan 2006). Modern business environment calls for agility and a level of independence among employees (Guastello, 2002). Organic organizations cultivate a culture in which employees can restructure and self-organize to address the existing issues (Davila et al 2007). This means that leadership must facilitate the atmosphere for self actualization. Leadership must adopt unconventional styles while managing adaptive and evolving systems (Donaldson 2001). Processes are allowed to emerge and not imposed upon stakeholders (Cole 2009). Leaders in organic setups are accessible to people, must be caring and authentic (Hess 2007). The organic leadership must give room for experimental mistakes, uncertainty and contradictions. This makes it possible for people to grow and synergy is responsible for excellence in organizational performance. In organic organizations, employees are expected to discover their potential. Rich connections among stakeholders in the organic organizations are attributed to demystification of leadership process (Jones 2001). Leaders are expected to be authentic and human (Stav 2003). The workplace must be fulfilling and the tasks must be meaningful to the employees (Bratton et al 2005). This includes giving people a chance to do things they care about (Guastello, 2002). This approach encourages innovation, achievement, commitment and involvement. Leaders are trained to rely on their intuition and abilities to listen and get involved (Durand 2006). This means that leaders specialize in generalization (Davila et al 2007). Enhancing creativity and competitiveness demands that full utilization of human potential (Jones 2001). Conventional business environments are known to trap employee potential through legalism and procedures (Zaccaro & Klimoski 2001). In most cases, decisions are made by top management and imposed down the hierarchy (Cole 2009). In modern business environment, individuals’ form a network and the equity of the company are distributed evenly (Hess 2007). This gives room for sincere commitment to the organizational business. In nonlinear organizations, personal offices are rare (Stav 2003). People have the choice to work from any part of the organization including chill-out spaces like library and games room (Coghlan 2006). This business environment fosters recombination. Informal encounters lead to increased creativity and evolution. Constant movement among employees is productive for employees and the organic organizations (Guastello, 2002). This has made organic organization one of the most preferred systems in the world. Comparison and contrast between mechanistic and organic organizations In conventional organizational setups, tension is rarely addressed. The employee participation is minimal and open-mindedness is not prioritized (Davila et al 2007). Some traditional organizations perceive mechanic models to be part of their brand (Guastello, 2002). This means they can lose identity by becoming organic. However, analysts argue that the function of any organization carries more weight compared to its form. Under conventional and mechanistic organizations, the intuitional wisdom can be challenged by the system (Bratton et al 2005). The organizations appeal to be performing under the influence of self-preservation and maintenance (Stahl et al 2012). However, organic organizations appeal to be function driven (Donaldson 2001). Fluid interactions and minimal bureaucracy can lead to increased creativity in organizations (Coghlan 2006). Complexity aims at ensuring that individuals and the organizations play their role activity and freely (Durand 2006). Optimal networking among employees happens when hierarchical structures are destroyed (Senior & Fleming 2006). Organizations must encourage flow of ideas (Sirois 2001). Linear organizational processes are likely to promote competition. The employees in mechanistic organizations tend to lack a sense of teamwork (Jones 2001). However, organic organizational management is driven by relationships and employee networks that freely share ideas. These networks are responsible for adaptability of the organization and change process. Under linear management, employees are required to defend their opinions (Coghlan 2006). This encourages formality and egoism. Mechanistic organizations are appearing to be interested in being right and delivering results (Stav 2003). The hesitation from turning organic can be attributed to fear of sustainability. The structures within mechanistic organizations are designed to yield durability and predictability (Davila et al 2007). The assumption is that predictability and certainty translate into improved results (Fulmer & Goldsmith 2001). However, given the recent economic challenges, some of the linear organizations have been coerced to restructure to accommodate the changes in the business environment and prepare the employees to anticipated solutions (Gilpin & Murphy 2008). Organic organizations, employees are allowed to contribute in any sector within the organization. The contributions go beyond their areas of specialization and expertise (Stringer 2002). The process of finding solutions becomes a collective and emergent process (Stav 2003). The system reduces egoism and encourages full participation of stakeholders in any capacity (Elkin et al 2006). Employee or stakeholder relationships become the driving engine of the organic organizations (Thomas 2001). The flexibility means that tensions are less because they are continuously being addressed (Fulmer & Goldsmith 2001). Studies show that tension occurs in organizational processes irrespective of their form or structure. However, organizational management is expected to reduce tension through fostering dialogue and authentic participation from the stakeholders (Elkin et al 2006). Mechanistic organizations have little capacity to address tensions that exist among individuals or departments. Rather, an imposition of idea leads to normalcy by not necessary excellence or optimum performance. Organic management style in organizations appeals to be an evolution from linear organizational setup (Sirois 2001). Management that focuses on the stakeholder relationship ends up being less formal and function oriented (Gilpin & Murphy 2008). The organization is able to mutate and emerge as it responds to the needs of the environment (Senior & Fleming 2006). This theory acknowledges that organizational environment is ever evolving and requires constant review to ensure productivity (Stav 2003). However, this approach is driven by the need to deliver (Fulmer & Goldsmith 2001). The mechanistic organizations have formal setups that ensure formality without guaranteeing strategic response to maximize employee participation in a liberal atmosphere (Elkin et al 2006). However, the nature of some organizations calls for it. In the organic leadership, leaders must learn to lead through facilitating a conductive environment. Conclusion Organizations are increasingly operating in unpredictable environments. This has led to emergence of complex systems and self-organizing interactions (Gilpin & Murphy 2008). Tension in organization reduces the effectiveness of organizational management. Mechanistic organizations are more concerned with formalities that productivity (Fulmer & Goldsmith 2001). They are perceived to have few mechanisms to address tensions that occur within the organizational processes. There is a correlation between behavioral norms and social conditions that promote effective organizational processes. Commitment to ritualistic procedures irrespective of their outcomes to the organizational productivity is considered unreasonable given the dynamic environments in which they exist. Organizations that emphasize on formalities at the expense of effectiveness are likely to become irrelevant in the face of globalization and technological influence. Instability in evolving markets and powerful market sources have pushed the desire for structural review. The influence of the organic management is expected to grow. References Abdi, K. 2007. Mechanistic insights into diversity and organization of the ankyrin-spectrin based membrane-skeleton. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. 2011. Metaphors we lead by: Understanding leadership in the real world. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Argyris, C. 2010. Organizational traps: Leadership, culture, organizational design. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bratton, J., Grint, K., & Nelson, D. L. 2005. Organizational leadership. Mason, Ohio: Thomson/South-Western. Coghlan, D. 2006. Organizational Change and Strategy: An Interlevel Dynamics Approach. Taylor & Francis. Cole, N. 2009. Organic leadership: Leading naturally right where you are. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books. Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., & Shelton, R. D. 2007. The creative enterprise: Managing innovative organizations and people. Westport, CT: Praeger. Donaldson, L. 2001. The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Durand, R. 2006. Organizational evolution and strategic management. London: SAGE. Elkin, G., Štrach, P., & University of Otago 2006. Lessons from the indigenous East for Western organisations?: Mechanistic and organic approaches to organization [sic] and management. Dunedin, N.Z: Dept. of Management, University of Otago. Fulmer, R. M., & Goldsmith, M. 2001. The leadership investment: How the worlds best organizations gain strategic advantage through leadership development. New York: AMACOM. Fulmer, R. M., & Goldsmith, M. 2001. The leadership investment: How the worlds best organizations gain strategic advantage through leadership development. New York: AMACOM. Gilpin, D. R., & Murphy, P. J. 2008. Crisis management in a complex world. New York: Oxford University Press. Guastello, S. J. 2002. Managing emergent phenomena: Nonlinear dynamics in work organizations. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hess, E. D. 2007. The road to organic growth: How great companies consistently grow marketshare from within. New York: McGraw-Hill. Holbeche, L. 2010. HR leadership. Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann. Jones, G. R. 2001. Organizational theory: Text and cases. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. 2000. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. 2002. The leadership challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Laszlo, C., & Laugel, J. -F. 2000. Large-scale organizational change: An executives guide. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Morrill, R. L. 2007. Strategic leadership: Integrating strategy and leadership in colleges and universities. Westport, CT: Praeger. Noe, R. A., & Noe, R. A. 2012. Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Sadler, P. 2003. Strategic management. Sterling, VA: Kogan Page. Senior, B., & Fleming, J. 2006. Organizational change. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall/Financial Times. Sirois, C. 2001. Organic management. New York: HarperCollins World. Stahl, G. K., Mendenhall, M. E., & Oddou, G. R. 2012. Readings and cases in international human resource management and organizational behavior. New York: Routledge. Stav, G. 2003. Mechanistic approaches to understanding temporary pool community organization. Beer Sheva: s.n. Storey, J. 2004. Leadership in organizations: Current issues and key trends. London: Routledge. Stringer, R. A. 2002. Leadership and organizational climate: The cloud chamber effect. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall. Thomas, S. J. 2001. Successfully managing change in organizations: A users guide. New York: Industrial Press. Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. 2001. The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting todays leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Read More