Organisational Analysis

The aim of this essay is to explore and discuss the view that mechanistic and bureaucratic organisations will probably struggle to encourage organisational learning. The structure and learning perspectives of organisational analysis will be used as academic lenses to view and propel this discussion. Relevant theories will be applied to analyse my own organisational experiences (direct and indirect). Examples derived from case studies of organisational situations will be looked at so as to make the discussion more cohesive. To begin with definitions of the perspectives in question will be given as to make understanding of the different types of organisations clearer. According to Drummond (2000) mechanical imagery depicts organisations as static machine-like entities operating in a steady and predictable manner. Likewise, the metaphor of bureaucracy suggests that people in organisations are bounded by rules, job descriptions and organisation charts. It is important to note that Taylor’s philosophy is founded upon mechanical imagery. The key concepts in the structural perspective are based on Taylor’s principles of scientific management and Weber’s ideal bureaucracy. Taylor (1911) formalised the principles of scientific management into four objectives which are division of labour, one best way, scientific selection and training and monitor performance. In Taylor’s view, organisations need clearly articulated objectives, sharp divisions of labour, specified hierarchies and responsibilities and formalised systems of control. Taylor saw people as near-automatons (robots), potentially troublesome perhaps, but basically programmable given proper supervision and appropriate incentives. In Taylor’s eyes, the existence of contradiction and ambiguity in organisations were signs of managerial weakness, something which could and should be eliminated. His work is basically a recipe for clarity and control (Drummond, 2000). According to Taylor (1911), output could be increased not by requiring operatives to work harder, but by showing them how to work more efficiently. Taylor came up with scientific management for shop floor workers but I have realised that even the fast food industry has adopted the same kind of set-up. Whilst working in McDonalds on the BigMac grill there was a systematic approach to work and it was timed, 1 – place buns in toaster, 2 – after thirty seconds place burgers on grill, 3 – dress the buns, 4 – place burgers on buns. This routine was done by two people and we would do this all day. Steps 1 and 3 would be done by one person and steps 2 and 4 by another; this was done so that the person handling meat stayed there and not touch the buns. It was like an assembly line because the burgers moved from one employee to the other doing different things but to achieve the same outcome. Constant monitoring was in place as we were given stars according to progress or put simply as to how many different stations you can work at, e. g. a star for each station – tills, chips or chicken. The layout of the kitchen looked like one conveyor belt going round and round. Critics have mentioned that mechanistic approaches work well when the task is straightforward, stable environment, replication, precision and compliance. All these attributes are greatly present in McDonalds and the other fact was that we had to clock in and out we were expected to behave like machines to be predictable and efficient. Extreme forms of the machine metaphor of organisations are seen in the bureaucracies and mass production factories – of which McDonalds is a bit of both. Weber based his ideal bureaucracy model on legal and absolute authority, logic and order. In Weber's idealised organisational structure, the responsibilities for workers are clearly defined and behaviour is tightly controlled by policies, procedures and rules. To a certain extent organisations should have some sort of bureaucracy and there are a number of bureaucratic structures. Morgan (1993) mentioned that the types of bureaucracy are rigid (person at the top), bureaucracy with task forces and project teams (guided by strict procedures) and bureaucracy with senior management team. The main idea that Weber brought about was the rational type of bureaucracy which is characterised by specialisation, authority hierarchy, operating rules and procedures and impersonality. Now looking at Taylor the characteristics of his organisation are division of management and labour, scientification of work and specialisation of tasks. It is not difficult to note that Taylor was a big influence on Weber and we can conclude that in these types of organisations decision-making is based on fairness and strict procedures. Weber's theory of organisations reflected an impersonal attitude towards the people in the organisation. Indeed, the work force, with its personal frailties and imperfections, was regarded as a potential detriment to the efficiency of any system. Weber’s idea of rationality was best developed further by Ritzer and coined a new term for it â€Å"McDonaldisation†. According to Ritzer (2007), a society characterised by rationalisation is one which emphasises efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology and control over uncertainty. The process of McDonaldisation takes a task and breaks it down into smaller tasks. This is repeated until all tasks have been broken down to the smallest possible level. The resulting tasks are then rationalized to find the single most efficient method for completing each task. All other methods are then deemed inefficient and discarded. McDonalds have standardised their product to make it more efficient, e. g. McDonalds is the same wherever you go – a big mac is still a big mac, we know what to expect in a McDonalds and we know how to behave as well because of that predictability. McDonalds’ environment is structured in a way that there are no surprises to customers. Efficiency is brought about by looking for the best route to getting the best output with least amount of resources and costs i. e. he grills in McDonalds cook meat within seconds and one person needed to operate a grill at any time. This brings us to the notion of control and calculability, there is great reliability on technology rather than humans and emphasis is on quantity rather than quality. Clearly these two approaches to viewing organisations are sort of out-dated and can be detrimental to the progress of an organisation in this day and age. Hence organisations are requi red to be flexible and evolve and also be able to cope with today’s pressures. Organisational learning (OL) is the way forward and aims at making sure that organisations are well equipped for the ever changing market place. Weick and Roberts (1993) mentioned that OL consists of interrelating actions of individuals, which are their â€Å"heedful interrelation† which results in a â€Å"collective mind†. Organisational Learning as the ability of an organisation to gain insight and understanding from experience through experimentation, observation, analysis, and a willingness to examine both successes and failures. Heedful interrelating is made possible via contribution, representation, and subordination. Organisational learning can be done and have a finite outcome. Organisations need to work faster and adapt quickly if they are to survive the current and turbulent environmental changes. Argyrils and Schon identified different types of organisational learning single and double loop learning. Single loop learning is sometimes referred to the lowest level because it only responds to change by detecting errors and then modifying strategies. Double loop learning is an advanced form of single loop learning meaning that it questions if operating norms are appropriate whereas in single loop there is embededness of culture and learned habits become resistant to change and learning. In other words double loop learning is concerned with the why and how to change the organisation while single loop learning is concerned with accepting change without questioning the underlying assumptions and core beliefs. In today’s organisational world knowledge has become really important. It is contributing to high value products and services. The rate of learning has to be greater than the rate of change and learning is the responsibility for everyone in the organisation. Organisational learning links nicely with learning organisations, this type of organisation continuously transforms itself and its context. â€Å"A learning organization is an organisation skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behaviour to reflect new knowledge and insights. † (Garvin, 1993, p. 80. ) Fincham and Rhodes (2005) mentioned that knowledge management involves organisations developing practices and policies that reward, recognise and harness the storehouse of knowledge of its people continuously innovate and remain creative using brain power as a source of competitive advantage. With the latter in mind it is wise to judge that the old ways of analysing organisations notably the structural perspective hinders organisational learning in a number of ways. Taking McDonalds as the case study it is clear that employees are merely resources which are there for use to maximise profits. Deskilling of workers because of the monotonous and repetitive work which can lead to stress because of emotional labour. Boredom and disassociation with task will creep in leading to alienation and lack of commitment. More routine and rigorous structure limits a lot because it is not good in times of change. There is limited space for creativity, innovation and flexibility because of the fragmented problem solving approach and the disconnected roles and communication. Low level of commitment and loyalty has seen a high staff turnover at McDonalds. Organisations are made up of human beings not machines. Employee alienation and customer dehumanisation is not attractive in any organisation. Bureaucratic organisations will struggle to encourage organisational learning because of their hierarchical structure. Management seem to have all the decision-making powers and this might not sit comfortably with the rest of the employees as they are disempowered. This obviously leads to inefficient decision-making, slow response due to the chain of command and politics is rife. Several critics have noted that the learning organisation model implies that managers must become interested as never before in the process of learning, as well as the results. The central statement of the learning organisation is in two parts: (1) that a key success factor for any business in the age of global competition is its ability to innovate continuously, appropriately, and faster than its rivals, and (2) that can only happen through unleashing the untapped capabilities of all its employees. The learning organisation is definitely a new and significant paradigms shift from the traditional bureaucratic view because it emphasises process over structure and contains a number of components. These components include: a vision of better organisational life, a body management practice guidelines and a network of experts and advocates, a set of mental models regarding individual and social psychology, the sociology of organisations and change and finally a concern for values of wholeness (in preference to fragmentation) and respect for people (Wheatley, 1992). Cravens et al (1996) also noted that organisations need to shift away from the old structural perspective because of the new highly dynamic environments. Many corporations are reducing management layers and organisational bureaucracy in pursuit of rightsizing or the horizontal organisation, concurrent actions include re-engineering business processes followed by organisational redesign and greater use of multifunctional teams, central issues are obtaining precision, flexibility and speed in the execution of programmes and strategies. This shift has also seen the new approach develop powerful information systems and automated knowledge capture permit the empowerment of employees in the management of business processes, priorities are more customer satisfaction and retention through greater organisational responsiveness and competitive advantage for the reformed organisation comes from added-value, created through knowledge feedback and exploitation (Cravens et al, 1996). To be effective in the workplace, we must be better learners; we must become more open to alien ideas and more humble about our own limitations. Tools and techniques cannot be separated from the vision and the values of the learning organisation. (Kofman and Senge, 1995). The learning organization approach is not just about improving productivity and work satisfaction it is also about the fundamental ethics of the workplace and the marketplace. People’s needs have to be considered and should people not be seen as productivity factors; this holistic approach sure does improve conditions and output. A happy worker is a motivated worker. I only lasted six months at McDonalds and the reasons for that are outlined in the essay. References Argyris, C. (1993) On Organizational Learning. Oxford: Blackwell Business/Blackwell Publishers. Cravens, D. W. (1996) New organisational Forms for Competing in Highly Dynamic Environments: The Network Paradigm. British Journal of Management 7: p203-217 Drummond, H. (2000) Introduction to Organisational Behaviour. Oxford: Oxford University Press Encyclopaedia of Small Business (2007) Organization Theory. Encyclopedia. com [Accessed on 12 Dec 2011] http://www. encyclopedia. com Fincham, R and Rhodes P. (2005) Principles of Organizational Behaviour, 4th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press Garvin, David A. (1993) â€Å"Building a Learning Organization,† Harvard Business Review, July-Aug: p. 78-91. Kofman, F and Peter, S. (1995) Communities of Commitment: The Heart of Learning Organizations, in Learning Organizations. Sarita Chawla & John Renesch, (eds. ), Portland, Productivity Press. Morgan, G. (1993) Imaginisation, London: Sage Ritzer, G. (2007) The McDonaldisation of Society, 5th ed. London: Pine Forge Press Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, New York: Doubleday. Senge P et al. (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, New York: Doubleday Taylor, F. W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper and Row. Wheatley, M. J. (1992) Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.