Organizations as machines

The machine metaphor is a well-used metaphor which is worth revisiting to examine its implications for organizational change. Gareth Morgan says, ‘When we think of organizations as machines, we begin to see them as rational enterprises designed and structured to achieve predetermined ends.’ This picture of an organization implies routine operations, well-defined structure and job roles, and efficient working inside and between the working parts of the machine (the functional areas). Procedures and standards are clearly defined, and are expected to be adhered to.

Many of the principles behind this mode of organizing are deeply ingrained in our assumptions about how organizations should work. This links closely into behaviourist views of change and learning (see description of behavioural approach to change in Chapter 1).

The key beliefs are:

Each employee should have only one line manager.
Labour should be divided into specific roles.
Each individual should be managed by objectives.
Teams represent no more than the summation of individual efforts.
Management should control and there should be employee discipline.

This leads to the following assumptions about organizational change:

The organization can be changed to an agreed end state by those in positions of authority.
There will be resistance, and this needs to be managed.
Change can be executed well if it is well planned and well controlled.

What are the limitations of this metaphor? The mechanistic view leads managers to design and run the organization as if it were a machine. This approach works well in stable situations, but when the need for a significant change arises, this will be seen and experienced by employees as a major overhaul which is usually highly disruptive and therefore encounters resistance. Change when approached with these assumptions is therefore hard work. It will necessitate strong management action, inspirational vision, and control from the top down.

See the works of Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol if you wish to examine further some of the original thinking behind this metaphor.