Describe Two of the Organisational Metaphors Studied and Discuss the Advantages and Disadvantages of Each
Essay Preview: Describe Two of the Organisational Metaphors Studied and Discuss the Advantages and Disadvantages of Each
Report this essay
DESCRIBE TWO OF THE ORGANISATIONAL METAPHORS STUDIED AND DISCUSS THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EACH.
This essay explores the concept of studying organisation styles metaphorically, particularly as perceived by Gareth Morgan (1986). The essay begins by describing two of the organisational metaphors, specifically the mechanistic organisation and the organisation as a brain being the most diverse of the metaphors used. It then reviews the interpretation of theorists writing on the subject and explores the practicalities of these organisational styles. In exploring these interpretations the essay discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each of the styles of organisation and endorses the continuous improvement of the brianlike organisations, but also seeks to highlight potential limitations which may arise.
“A metaphor is a figure of speech in which a phrase is applied to something that it does not literally denote in order to imply a resemblance.” (Collins English Dictionary, 2002)
The image created by metaphor allows us to make comparisons and see similarities between how, in this case, different organisations are run and describe the organisations in a way that can easily be recognised.
Gareth Morgan (1986) has widely promoted the value of using different metaphors to look at organisations. The first metaphor, the organisation as a machine, is possibly the easiest to understand. Morgan (1986) explains how this style of organisation underpins the development of bureaucracy. The mechanical metaphor was dominant for most of the last century, and is associated with the work of Taylor & Fayol (Pugh & Hickson 1989). When we think of an organisation as a machine we imagine a very systematic approach which is frequently seen in bureaucratic organisations. They usually have strict processes and chains of command with a hierarchical, top down style of management.
These organisations are conceived of a series of functional departments carrying out precisely defined jobs and responsibilities with detailed attention to patterns of authority. This classical management style promotes rational systems carried out in as efficient way as possible.
The second of Morgans (1986) metaphors however, considers the organisation as a brain and draws the attention to the importance of information, learning and intelligence and provides a frame of reference for understanding modern organisations.
This style of organisation has the capacity to be flexible, resilient and inventive with a continuous improvement. The brain has no centre point of control but stores and processes vast amounts of data in many of its parts simultaneously and the order emerges from the process it is, rather than being imposed.
Frederick Taylor first considered the principle of scientific management (the mechanistic style) in the late 19th century (Pugh & Hickson 1989). He believed the responsibility of the organisation belonged to the manager and workers implemented what they were told to do. Taylor carried out time and motion studies showing how tasks could be carried out the most efficiently. One of his sayings was “You are not supposed to think. There are people paid for thinking around you” (Management Development 2005). Taylor believed that payment by results was motivation enough for the workers if they were told exactly what to do.
Henri Fayol, who was working at the beginning of the 20th century (Pugh & Hickson 1989), also approved of this style of organisation with the emphasis on command and control, believing the functions of management were five fold Ð- planning, organising, commanding, coordinating and controlling. With the managers having a high level of accountability.
Max Weber, also writing around the turn of the 20th century (Pugh & Hickson 1989), observed these parallels between the organisation and the machine. However he could see that this form of organisation had the potential to routinise and mechanise every aspect of human life and thereby dehumanising the individual.
Although this style of management is thought to be outdated today it is still evident in many organisations, for example, McDonalds has a strict procedural tick list for its staff (Morgan 1996, see appendix 1). This style can also be seen in many public sector organisations such as councils, health and education authorities and the military. The necessity for this style of organisation can be due to the size of the organisations and the work they undertake. They are often accountable to the general public and therefore have to follow strict procedures which are recorded for public scrutiny. In the case of a military organisation, an active unit needs to know and understand exactly the chain of command when in action as there can be no confusion.
It should be mentioned that it was Elton Mayo (Mullins, 2002) who carried out the Hawthorne experiments between 1927 and 1932, which introduced the concept that interaction within the workforce, treating them more like people, actually increased productivity suggesting the mechanical style was not necessarily the most advantageous and introducing the human factor in work situations.
To understand the brianlike metaphor we have to understand that the brain is made of two hemispheres. It is understood that the left side of the brain is more logical, analytical and rational side, whereas the right side is more creative and emotional, it is more organic. Although each side has a dominant role, both sides need to integrate and be used together to create the whole.
Like the brain, such an organisation has areas that concentrate on particular arms of the business, however, the organisation as a whole works together. Each department can work on its own as can be seen in artificial intelligence such as Rodney Brooks mobot (Morgan, 1989). The departments continue on a series of processes which results in the function of part of the whole. There is no central control, but the whole (brain or organisation) engages in a set of diverse activities that eventually emerge as a coherent pattern.
This can also be compared to the holographic concept. Holography, invented by Dennis Gober in 1948 (Morgan, 1989), is a system whereby the information is recorded as a whole in all its parts. If this is broken the whole can be recreated from any part as all the information is shared within all its parts. It was Karl Pribram (Morgan, 1989) who suggested that the brain functioned in accordance with holographic principles. A real life example of this occurring was seen in the case of a small Norwegian shipping company, who as a result of a plane