To start the essay we will look at the machine, organic and political metaphors individually. We will then move on to give several examples and compare and contrast the three metaphors. We will then see how modern technology has changed the way organisations organise, by looking at the impact of IT and Drucker’s predictions for future organisations. Finally we will conclude the essay.

Machine Metaphor

The machine metaphor initially seems highly appropriate in the study of organisations. People use sayings such as ‘runs like clockwork’ and words such as precision, standardised, repetitive, consistent and efficient to describe the world of work. Such sayings and words are applicable to both machines and organisations. It was during the industrial revolution when the need for mechanistic type organisations arose. The new technology required new skills and practices in order to operate efficiently. Throughout the nineteenth century managers experimented to find ways in which to run organisations that used machine technology, many techniques were borrowed from the military, therefore, some organisations became more like military machines.

The foundations of the machine metaphor were developed by the classical and scientific management theorists. The classical theorists captured the idea of management as a process of command, control, co-ordination and organisation. Scientific management was pioneered by F.W. Taylor, he sought to standardise work through the use of time-and-motion studies. By detailed observation and measurement of work, management was able to maximise production through reorganising work. "Taylor’s scientific management was heavily orientated to transforming everything work-related into quantifiable dimensions." (Ritzer, 1993). The reorganising of work also enabled Taylor to extract the knowledge of the machine operators and pass it on to management. By doing this management would have control and influence over the work force. In effect, Taylor’s approach divides the workers into hands and management into brains. Henry Ford developed Taylor’s scientific management further, by continual rationalisation, through the increased division of labour and introducing the moving assembly line, Ford effectively made workers servants or parts of machines.

The work of Max Weber on bureaucracies further contributed to the theory of organisations as machines. Weber gave a definition of bureaucracy

The mechanistic metaphor predominantly ignores the external environment of the organisation, in other words the organisation is a closed system. To think of organisations as organisms is to think of them as living things in an ever changing environment. As in nature, for the organisation to survive it must adapt and evolve. Many terms for studying organisations as organisms are borrowed from biology for some of the main principles see Figure 1 (Morgan 1986:pp 46-47). Mechanistic organisations are closed systems, and, therefore cannot adapt easily to changing environments, or to use biological terms the organisation can become entropic, that is, they deteriorate and breakdown. An open system can sustain itself from entropy by importing energy to offset the tendencies. In order to survive the organisation needs to differentiate and integrate, this is known as requisite variety. A bureaucracy has a fixed structure to achieve given ends, this restricts the ability to achieve those ends should problems arise, the key is having a variety of ways to achieve the ends, known as equifinality. If the suggested structure for a mechanistic organisation is a hierarchy, then we could say the structure of an organic organisation would be a matrix or network, which we will discuss later.

Taylor and his contemporaries attempted to overcome the general ‘laziness’ and slow pace setting of workers. Taylor identified two types of laziness; natural and systematic soldiering (Braverman, 1974). To encourage workers to comply with the requirements of the organisation Taylor offered economic incentives. The work of Elton Mayo, Abraham Maslow, Frederick Herzberg and Douglas McGregor identified the importance of social needs, non-economic forms of motivation, enriched jobs and democratic leadership. "The idea of integrating the needs of the individuals and the organisations became a powerful force." (Morgan, 1986:42). The work of the human relations school recognised that individuals, groups and organisations have needs that must be satisfied. This underpins the systems approach, that organisations are open to their environment and must achieve an appropriate relation with that environment in order to survive. The open system is made up of interrelated subsystems, the whole organisation is a system, which contains subsystems, which in turn are complete open systems in their own right, (Morgan, 1986), therefore, "attention is particularly given to achieving a proper balance of system parts." (Thompson & McHugh, 1995).

Studying organisations as organisms in an ever changing environment can open different avenues of enquiry. Does the organisation adapt to or is it selected by the environment? Contingency theorists believe there is no one best way to organise, therefore, the best way to organise is to achieve a good ‘fit’ with the environment. The work of Burns and Stalker (1961), is a good example of this approach. The population ecology approach emphasises selection and survival. "In this sense, the perspective is more pessimistic about managerial capacity to rationally respond to external shifts." (Thompson & McHugh, 1995:69). In other words this is a very deterministic approach. This area of study borrows a lot from the work of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection.

Managers and employees have different interests and engage in employment for many different reasons. This can lead to conflict within the organisation, therefore, make the achievement of aims and objectives difficult. However, there are those that have the power to influence others. Thus we can say interests, conflict and power are of extreme importance to an organisation. There are many terms used to describe organisations that are derived from politics, such as: democratic, autocratic, authority and bureaucracy for example. The political metaphor encourages us to see organisations as loose networks of people with divergent interests. Different interests can accompany or conflict with one another, we all have different demands whether they be the demands of work or leisure and present or future demands (Morgan, 1986).

A major task of management is the control of the workforce. In order to do this management needs power, "power is seen as the ability of A to get B to do something B would not do otherwise, despite any resistance." (Thompson & McHugh, 1995). Taylor and scientific management attempted to implement control through a high division of labour and economic incentives (see Braverman, 1974). McGregor's theory Y (as opposed to theory X) offered an alternative. By using democratic styles of management, morale and productivity could increase. Foucault offered the idea of Bentham’s panopticon as another form of control. Through surveillance it is possible for management to get employees to do what they want them to, giving management more power, without them physically watching the workforce.

Although managers are often perceived as the holders of power and authority, employees are empowered through regulations and rights, which are in turn are protected by trade unions and professional bodies. As mentioned earlier employees have different and diverse interests. Morgan (1986) identifies Task Interests, work one has to perform; Career Interests, visions of what the future may hold; Extramural Interests, personality, attitude, values, preferences, beliefs and sets of commitments from outside work (shape the way they act). Conflict arises when the employees attempt to pursuit or defend these interests. The political metaphor is different to the machine and organic metaphors in that it sees organisations as made up of conflicting parts, not as unified systems in the quest for survival (Morgan, 1986:p196).

The traditional perception of mechanistic organisations or bureaucracies is that they thrive in a simple and stable environment, that is a monopoly or oligopoly. An appropriate market for a mechanistic organisation would be technologically simple and straight forward. A stable environment permits mass-production, which in turn can lead to economies of scale. In order to sustain product consistency and raw material supply, long-term contracts and assured suppliers are required. Finally the workforce or parts of the bureaucracy are required to perform how they should. Perhaps the most commonly used example of a mechanistic organisation is McDonalds. Ritzer (1993) wrote about the increasing calculability in society in his paper the "McDonaldization of Society". He emphasised that we live in a rationalised society where people calculate their actions, we measure, weigh and deliberate as opposed to being compulsive and spontaneous, we are in effect obsessed with quantification. At McDonalds, the quantity is a vital aspect of the fast food meal, take for example this extract…

As we can see each part of the products is quantifiable. Each operation is pre-planned in the smallest way possible. This permits for consistency to be maintained in the products, moreover, an increased division of labour gives management greater control and a larger pool of labour from which to choose from. This extreme rationality is even used in some restaurants to ‘train’ the employees how to ‘interact’ with the customer. Mechanistic or bureaucratic organisations can be extremely efficient and cost effective. However, cumbersome rules and red tape restrict innovation and prolong the way procedures are completed, also, workers initiative and flexible responses are restricted by job descriptions, specifications and rules. Ultimately individual members do not question what they or the organisation is doing. Thus there is a paradox, mechanistic organisations don’t necessarily use the most efficient means in order to achieve the appropriate ends. Merton (1949) suggested that bureaucracies may be both dysfunctional, for the individual and the organisation. Such dysfunctional affects of the mechanistic metaphor has given rise to the organic metaphor.

Modern technology has changed the way contemporary organisations operate. New technology has…

Porter and Miller (1985) suggested that information technology is affecting competition in three ways: IT changes industry structure, therefore altering the rules of competition; IT creates a competitive advantage, as it gives organisations new ways to out perform their rivals; IT generates whole new businesses, often within an organisations existing operations (1985:p150). From this we can begin to understand that technology has had a major impact on the business environment and organisations. We are in a time when business environments are turbulent and highly competitive. It is in these types of environments that the mechanistic organisations break down as they have rigid rules and act as closed systems not responding to the environment, in other words they become entropic (deteriorate and breakdown). For an organisation to survive it must adapt. Drucker in his article "The Coming of Organisation" (1988) predicts that in near future…

In order to survive organisations can no longer be inflexible as they will not be able to rival competitors innovations. The emergence of CAD, CAM and CNC have allowed automobile organisations greater flexibility. For example, "BMW can build customised cars (each with its own tailored gearbox, transmission system and interior) on the normal assembly line. Automation and flexibility are achieved simultaneously, a pairing that changes the pattern of rivalry among competitors." (Porter & Miller, 1985:p156). This is a far cry from Fords "Any colour, so long as it’s black." Technology such as CAD, CAM and CNC not only improve automation and flexibility but also they reduce costs of design and modifying products. We could say that information technologies make decision making more dynamic and production more flexible.

Modern technologies have also allowed organizations to become more decentralized, this is not just on a regional or national scale but globally as well! There is no longer a need for large organisations to be geographically centralized with strict and tall hierarchies. It has been suggested that in most bureaucratic type organisations some layers of management solely function as relays, passing information and decisions through the hierarchy. Communications technology can cut out these sought of management tasks, moreover, ICTs have overcome spatial and geographic boundaries, meaning management can be further away the organisation or employees. Bureaucratic forms of control and co-ordination are no longer needed as technology overcomes this.

One way in which organic organisations cope with changes in the environment is by the use of matrices. A matrix works by specialists from different departments being brought together to work in project based teams, therefore, the use of a matrix improves the co-ordination between functional specialisms. Matrices do have problems though, members of a matrix may have two bosses or functions, for example project and departmental, this can lead to a conflict. People in matrices often end up with dual responsibility and accountability.

If technology forces organisational change, and ICTs are a source of power and control, what influences does this have on the political metaphor. Those that have the greatest access and control of knowledge and information are more likely to be those in power.

Knowledge can be manipulated, restricted and distributed to profit those who control it. For example those that have control of an organisation's intranet could use it to control information flows. Technology can also be used as a form of control in its own right. Foucault’s work on the Panopticon is an excellent example of this. Electronic forms of supervision and control have replaced the mechanistic formal structures and departments. New computer technology has led to Computer Telephony Integration, which enables telephone switch boards to be linked to information stored on databases. Such technology has led to the formation of call centres. Each telephone ring or duration of phone call are measured, calls are recorded to see if the operators deviate form the ‘script’. In some call centres even CCTV and e-mail scanning takes place. As well as monitoring, control is rife. Monitors display the days target or instructions, other monitors display the days achievements so far (The Guardian, November 9^th 1998).

Organisations usually become very dependent on a form of technology to convert inputs to outputs. In situations where one stage of the production process is dependant on another, people have the power to disrupt the whole (Morgan, 1986:p172). Dissatisfied small groups or individuals could have the power to bring the organisation to its knees. Technology can be used to disrupt and shift the balance of power! For example CNC machines can be introduced by management to give them greater control of the work process and limit the employees discretion. Employees can also learn the ins and outs of the technology and can use this to their own advantage, through manipulation.

Conclusion

The mechanistic metaphor of organisations works best in environments where machines would work best. That being a stable, predictable and consistent environment, if such an environment exists then mechanistic organisations can be very efficient indeed. Moreover, mechanistic organisations are able to produce products with precision, speed and consistent quality (see MacDonald’s example). But modern environments are becoming more and more unstable and unpredictable, and the mechanistic ‘one best way’ of doing things cannot cope with such uncertainty. This metaphor is not complex enough to survive in a complex environment. By treating humans as parts of machines, dehumanising and de-skilling them, the mechanistic metaphor fails to recognise the consequences such as alienation, boredom and lack of motivation. Red-tape and unquestioning bureaucracy is crippling to an organisation, strikers working-to-rule is a good example. New technology has had a major impact on the mechanistic metaphor, ICTs have reduced the need for tall hierarchies and bureaucratic procedures, whilst modern technology has changed the way organisation go about organising.

The organic metaphor is much more suitable to this type of environmental change. It can adapt to changing circumstances because of its flexibility. The metaphor looks towards the environment as a way to construct and run organisations, businesses have to choose how to operate rather than using the limited ‘one best way’. Technology as well as forcing change has increased flexibility, made organisations more dynamic and decentralised. Many academics argue that the organic metaphor is too deterministic, especially the population ecology approach. Is it fair to say that only the ‘fittest’ organisations will survive, after all many successful organisations merge and take over one another in order to increase their profits and hold of the market. There are many organisations out there that can manipulate the environment to their own needs. For example Microsoft has such a prominent position in the software market, that other software developers need to manufacture their products to work on Microsoft’s latest operating system. Many organisations are active agents within the environment. The biggest problem with the organic metaphor is that organisms and their parts must all work together to survive and thrive. This implies that organisations need to be united in order to survive, however, as the political metaphor suggests this is not the case.

We know that people in organisations have different interests, are conflictual and will compete for power. Therefore a unitary perspective of organisations is unrealistic, the political metaphor accepts pluralism as a form of organisation. People are seen as pulling or going in different directions in pursuit of their interests. To help them in pursuit of these interests people will manipulate things for themselves in order to gain control. This metaphor promotes a different way of looking at organisations, moving away form organisational structure and environments towards people and power. This can be very appropriate for modern organisations as the control of ICTs are seen as sources of power. The problem with the political metaphor is that it over states power, people are seen as power hungry, selfish, ruthless and scheming. Many members of organisations are clearly not power hungry to this degree. The political metaphor is also too descriptive of what is going on in organisations, rather than prescribing how best to organise.

It seems ironic that advances in electronic communication and technology has led to the demise (with a few exceptions) of the mechanistic metaphor as a way of organising, after all the mechanistic metaphor was devised as a way to harmonise organisations and technology. Modern technology has created new dynamic environments and flexible organisations. This makes the organic metaphor more appropriate for studying organisations. As we have discovered ICTs are also a source of power and control, making the political metaphor an appropriate one in studying today’s organisations. The evidence suggests that both the organic and political metaphors are appropriate to studying modern organisations, as long as the weaknesses of the metaphors are understood. Finally it must be stated that there is no one best way to understand organisations, therefore, using different metaphors to understand different aspects of organisations is important.

Bibliography

Beckett, A. (1998) G2 in The Guardian Monday November 9 1998: pp2-

Braverman, H. (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital Monthly Review Press

Drucker, P.F. (1988) The Coming of the New Organisation Harvard Business Review

Galbraith, J.R. (1977) Organisation Design Addison-Weslet Publishing Company

Jary, D. & Jary, J. (1995) Collins Dictionary of Sociology Harper Collins Publishers

Merton, R.K. (1949) Social Theory and Social Structure Glencoe, I11: Free Press

Morgan, G. (1986) Images of Organisation Sage Publications

Porter, M. & Miller, E. (1985) How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage Harvard Business Review

Reed, M. (1986) Redirections in Organisational Analysis Tavistock: London

Reed, M. (1997) Lecture handout - The Impact of IT

Ritzer, G. (1993) The MacDonaldization of Society

Thompson, P. & McHugh, D. (1995) Work Organisations - A Critical Introduction MacMillan Press

© Matthew Aldridge