The early writers on organisational design were searching for a best way to design organisations. They tended to view organisations as "relatively unchangeable". But these early writers dealing primarily with organisations that manufactured a single product. Since change in these organisations was relatively slow, design could be seen & a "given". And once the best design was created, behaviour could be properly controlled by the division of labour through foal rules, management hierarchy, and span of control. In other words, structure was the key; everything else was dependent on it. Traditional thinking, thus used a relatively "closed system" approach to organisations and provides some basic principles of organizing which cannot be universally applied in all situations.
The research & developments offered by Burns and Stalker had roots in the "Open systems" view of organisations. There is input-output inter dependency between the organisation and its environment and accordingly, there is an imperative need to introduce a dynamic element into thinking about organisational structure and design.
In this way modem theory, instead of viewing all bureaucratic structures & inevitable dysfunctional whatever the circumstances, takes a "contingency" perspective on the issue. In other words, there is no "ideal structure" suitable for all organisations under all circumstances. The appropriate structure is essentially "a child of the circumstances".
Burns and Stalker investigated 20 manufacturing firms in England and Scotland and concluded that two quite different organisational structures could be successful, depending on the nature of a fun's environment. The bureaucratic form of organisation thrived when the environment was stable, but experienced difficulty when the environment was rapidly changing and ucertain. In the latter environments, successful organisations used a structure that contrasted markedly with the traditional bureaucracy. This alternative emphasised horizontal relations, flexibility and managerial discretion. Burns and Stalker called the two different but equally successful structures "mechanistic" and "organic" organisations, respectively.
Mechanistic Structure
The mechanistic type of organisation is highly bureaucratic. It involves more centralised authority, many rules and procedures, a precise division of labour, narrow spans of control, and formal and impersonal means of coordination. Decision-making in this structure adheres to the chain of command. This type of organisation is suitable when the operating environment is basically stable.
Organic Structure
The organic structures have a flexible and relaxed organisations. They exhibit basic characteristics as decentralised authority, few rules and procedures, less precise division of labour, wider spans of control, and informal and personal means of coordination. Organic structures do better when environmental conditions are rapidly changing.
Figure gives a continuum of organisational design strategies of mechanistic and organic structure
 |
| A Continum of Organisational Design Strategies |
As you seen, in essence, mechanistic and organic structures are opposite ends on a continuum of organisational design strategies. In practice, almost all organisations are likely to show different combinations. Thus, no organisation or its sub-unit is likely to be purely mechanistic or purely organic in nature. You can also note, any organisation, whether it uses a mechanistic or organic structure, it will still reflect the basic principles of organising.
No comments:
Post a Comment