22 – Mechanistic and Organic Systems

Introduction

An organisation is a system that operates within the context of a larger environment. The organisation constantly interacts with its surroundings, being influenced by them and affecting it. According to research and analysis, two management systems are appropriate for two types of environments. They are as follows:

1. Mechanistic systems- that are appropriate for a stable environment

2. Organic systems suitable for a changing environment.

The development of two systems in numerous organisations demonstrates conclusively the effect of the environment on management and organisational structure, with the environment functioning as a significant determinant.

22.1 Mechanics Systems

The mechanical system, according to Burns and Stalker, includes the following characteristics:

1. The specialised division of functional tasks into which the challenges and tasks confronting the organisation are subdivided.

2. The reconciliation of these various performances at each level of the hierarchy by the immediate superiors, who are also accountable for ensuring that each is relevant in his or her special section of the main work.

3. Translate rights, obligations, and techniques into functional position responsibilities.

4. Control, authority, and communication are organised in a hierarchical system.

5. The abstract nature of each particular task is pursued using approaches and goals that differ from those of the organisation as a whole.

6. concern members tend to interact vertically, i.e., between superior and subordinate.

7. The greater emphasis and prestige attached to internal knowledge, experience, and competence than to general knowledge, experience, and talent.

8. Reinforcement of the hierarchical structure through the exclusive placement of knowledge of current events at the top of the hierarchy, where the ultimate reconciliation of separate tasks and judgement of importance is made.

9. A propensity for superiors’ instructions and decisions to direct operations and working behaviour.

10. Internal knowledge, experience, and skills are more important and prestigious than general knowledge, experience, and abilities.

22.2 Organic Systems

The organic system contains the following features:

1. The contribution of specific knowledge and experience to the concerns’ common task.

2. The spread of commitment to the cause that goes beyond any formal description.

3. A lateral rather than a vertical channel of communication inside the organization, communication between employees of different positions, similar to consultation rather than command.

4. Communication material includes information and guidance rather than instruction and decisions.

5. The modification and ongoing reinterpretation of individual tasks due to interactions with others.

6. The significance and prestige ascribed to ties and knowledge valid in the firm’s industrial and commercial context.

7. The control, authority, and communication network structure.

8. Commitment to the company’s tasks and to the technological ethos of material advancement and expansion is appreciated more than loyalty and obedience.

22.3 Situational or Contingency Approach

The contingency or situational approach is essential to the modern management paradigm. The primary premise behind contingency approaches is that no single management action is appropriate for all situations. The contingency strategy attempts to bridge the gap between the organisation and its surroundings.

According to Tosi and Hammer, the core view is that when an organisation’s subsystem behaves in response to another system or subsystem, we say that reaction is reliant on the environment.

The contingency approach has the following characteristics: Management action is contingent on specific actions occurring outside the system or subsystem, as the case may be.

Organizational action should be based on behaviour outside the system for the organisation to be integrated with the environment. Due to the distinctive organization-environment interaction, no action can be universal. It varies depending on the situation.

22.3.1 Consequences of the Contingency Approach

The contingency method is a significant addition to the paradigm of modern management theory. It is an intelligent technique to understanding the organization’s rising complexity. The following are the primary consequences of the contingency approach:

Management is entirely situational, and there is no universal management principle or one best way to do a particular thing. The approach suggests suitable alternatives for managerial actions that are generally contingent on external and internal environments, such as organizational design, strategy formulation, and so on.

According to the contingency approach, because the organisation interacts with its environment, neither it nor any of its subsystems is free to take absolute action.

22.3.2 Constraints of the Contingency Approach

Despite several contributions, the contingency method has not been recognised as a coherent theory of management since it has certain limitations:

Inadequate literature: This method does not adequately describe the many types of activities that can be undertaken in various scenarios.

Complex: This technique’s concept is simple, but when managers implement it, it becomes highly complex.

Complex empirical testing: Because this technique lacks empirical validity, it cannot be used for managerial decisions.

Reactive rather than proactive: The contingency method is primarily reactive. It simply indicates what managers can do in a given situation.

22.4 Organizational Development Failures

On the other hand, organisational development has received harsh criticism for increasing organisational sustainability and effectiveness because many OD programmes have failed. Much of the enthusiasm generated at the start of OD programmes dissipated over time in the early 1960s. OD grew in popularity, with numerous professional consultants offering ship services and programmes to various organisations. However, by the 1970s, there was significant dissatisfaction with OD as a result of several contentious OD tactics, such as sensitivity training, confrontation techniques, and so on. Similarly, research investigations have failed to determine that OD impacts all organisations, particularly bottom-line ones. As a result, organisational development cannot be viewed as a cure for all organisational challenges. OD is generally chastised along the following lines: There is a gap between ideal and real-world settings. OD strives for the ideal while disregarding reality.

Because no organisation can fully implement an open system, OD makes people unsuited for the real world of organisations.

Change resistance is a natural phenomenon, and OD places unfair pressure on people to change. As a result, it fails even as a long-term strategy.

OD fails to motivate people with low success levels. If an organisation is teeming with these individuals, trying OD is pointless.

OD programmes are frequently costly; only major organisations can afford this luxury without guaranteeing a beneficial outcome.

Many of these comments can be proven grounded in fact and experience. People finally became aware of its dysfunctional characteristics after numerous OD efforts failed. However, it should be emphasised that OD programmes are more likely to fail if they are not carried out effectively. There have been instances of OD programmes being implemented incorrectly and failing.

Evans has identified three factors that have contributed to the failure of OD programmes: the failure of the management consultant group to correctly tailor the programme to the organisation’s actual needs; the failure to model appropriate personnel behaviour in the programme; and the failure to increase employee motivation through participation and the development of personal growth and self-esteem.

As a result, it is possible to see that OD itself is not problematic, but its use may be. As a result, some specific efforts are required to use OD efforts best. Among these initiatives are the following:

The OD programme should have genuine support from high management.

The organisation must clearly and adequately define the objectives of the OD programme.

Allow enough time for the effects of the OD programme to be realised.

The use of OD interventions should be done correctly and tailored to the organization’s specific requirements.

Only a thoroughly competent OD consultant should be pressed for the service, and he should work with internal change agents to establish understanding.

22.5 Some Indian OD Experience

O.D. and planned change began in India in the early 1960s. A group of Indian experts trained at the National Training Laboratories (NTL) in Bethel, Maine, USA, developed a significant amount of O.D. technology in India. In the mid-1960s, the Small Industries Extension Training (SIET) Institute in Hyderabad, the State Bank of India, and the Indian Institute of Management (UM) programmes started and widely employed grid programmes. Unfortunately, these isolated efforts did not lead to O.D.’s logical conclusion.

In the middle of the 1970s, Larsen & Toubro first introduced O.D. in India as a formal and structured division of the HRD department. The reform process was supposed to be institutionalised, and more O.D. specialists would be developed. Unfortunately, this did not occur since the country’s corporate sector operates in a highly protected and secure environment with few incentives to reform. As a result, O.D. remained primarily at academic institutions, where it was the domain of a few specialists and was essentially limited to T-group training and other training-based interventions. The Indian Society for Applied Behavioural Science (ISABS), an associate of NTL, generated less than 100 process professionals across the large country after 25 years of existence, indicating its modest growth.

Several efforts have been made in India to use the O.D. strategy and associated procedures, but they have not had the desired impact. According to Srinivas (1994), one likely explanation is that O.D., as it has evolved to date, is culturally distinctive and thus cannot be extended to locations outside the United States. The issue of OD technology’s non-transferability to cultures such as India arose due to fear or suspicion of its aggressive practices. The general practitioner or change agent approach of informality and openness is likewise unsuitable for the Indian context. A deeper investigation of values rooted in Indian religion and psycho-philosophy, on the other hand, reveals that cultural values are generally supportive of organisational renewal and development. The rich cultural history also contains a changing paradigm on which new ways and designs of O.D. interventions may be conceivable. And such designs are more likely to be accepted in the country.

The situation has altered due to the increased number of applied behavioural scientists and T-group trainers, the HRD movement and the development of HRD departments, the contributions of multinational corporations in India, and the influence of Western education. Professional organisations such as the ISABS (Indian Society for Applied Behavioral Sciences), the ISISD (Indian Society for Individual and Social Development), the ISTD (Indian Society for Training and Development), and the HRD Network, as well as academic institutions such as the IIMs (Indian Institutes of Management), have aided in this effort. Everyone has been pushed to seek change in the post-liberalization age. As a result, the use of O.D. technologies has grown.

In India, there is a broad context for organisational development.

Understanding Organizational Structure, Leadership, and Management

To truly comprehend organisational change and begin steering practical change efforts, the change agent should be thoroughly aware of the change effort’s context. This entails knowing the fundamental systems and structures of organisations and their common vocabulary and functions. This criterion also relates to an understanding of organisational leadership and management. As a result, graduate courses in business frequently begin with a course or discussion of organisational theory. This topic contains various links to assist you in gaining this broad understanding. The following links (briefly studied in the order listed) may be useful in gaining an understanding of organisations, as well as their leadership and administration.

Understanding and Managing Organizational Performance and Management

Organizational change should not be carried out simply for the sake of change. Organizational transformation efforts should aim to improve the performance of organisations and those working in them. As a result, it’s beneficial to have a basic awareness of what “performance” is and the many strategies for managing performance in organisations.

Consideration of the Whole

Over the last few decades, there has been an explosion in the useful tools available to assist change agents in effectively exploring, understanding, and communicating about organisations, as well as guiding successful change in those organisations. Tools from systems theory and systems thinking, in particular, represent a significant breakthrough. Even if the change agent is not an expert in systems theory or thinking, a fundamental grasp can foster an entirely new style of functioning. The following link leads to many well-organized materials on systems thinking and technologies.