A Mechanistic Mode Of Organization Business Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2090 Downloads: 5 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Management Essay Type Narrative essay Did you like this example? The structure of any organization has a clear impact on both employee behaviour and its performance Organizational Structure as Determinant of Organizational Performance: Uncovering Essential Facets of Organic and Mechanistic Structure. On the other hand, an organizational structure provides an overview about the hierarchy of levels, roles and responsibilities, authorities, communication channels, etc. Mechanistic organizational structure has a certain amount of bureaucratic features such as being a rigid structure, centralized in decision making, having well defined job roles and well-defined communication channels. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Mechanistic Mode Of Organization Business Essay" essay for you Create order These features ensure high efficiency in strict processes and procedures. Furthermore, it reduces flexibility and learning opportunities. The success of the mechanistic structure depends largely upon the external environment and also effectiveness in increasing organizational performance. It is of utmost importance to understand the definition of the organizational structure since it affects both employee behaviour and organizational performance (Organizational Structure as Determinant of Organizational Performance: Uncovering Essential Facets of Organic and Mechanistic Structure). Organizational structure is understood as a method consisting of responsibilities and power allocated amongst members and how work procedures are carried out among them. (Nahm et al., 2003). It also includes the layers of hierarchy, centralization of authority, and horizontal integration. However, an organizational structure is a multi-dimensional construct which illustrates the division of work (roles or responsibilities including specification), departmentalization, centralization, complexity, communication or coordination mechanisms including standardization, formalization and flexibility (How does organizational structure influence performance through learning and innovation in Austria and China). Two main types of organizational structures can be identified as mechanistic and organic. The next paragraph would provide an overview of the mechanistic organizational structure whilst discussing its nature and characteristics. Mechanistic structure is  hierarchical  and bureaucratic by nature. Its structure, processes and roles are considered as a machine where each part of the organization does what it is intended to do. Three main features could be identified. Namely highly centralized  authority, formalized procedures and  practices specialized functions (Businessdictionary.com). Thus, a mechanistic structure has a clear, well-defined, centralized , vertical hierarchy of command, authority, and control. It achieves efficiency and predictability through specialization, standardization, and formalization. Rigidly defined jobs, technologies, and processes are outcomes of such mechanical organizational structure. Mechanistic structure aims to achieve efficiency thorough tight control (Enotes/Studymaster). Characteristics for mechanistic organizational structure are listed below: Stable environment This organizational structure works best when the environment is relatively stable. Low differentiation of tasks Tasks will not be differentiated much, because each subtask is relatively stable and easy to control. Low integration of e.g. departments and functional areas Due to the stability of tasks, there will be low integration between departments and functional areas, because tasks stay relatively stable, and because the functional areas are not heavily dependent on each other. Centralized decision-making When the environment is stable, there is no need for complex decision-making that involves people at lower levels. Therefore, decision-making is centralized at the top of the organization. Standardization and formalization When tasks are stable, tasks should be standardized and formalized, so that operations can run smoothly without breakdowns. Source : https://www.businessmate.org/Article.php?ArtikelId=44 Mechanistic organizations prefer formalized structure due to two main reasons. It reduces the variability within the organization and enhances predictability in the organization rather than being ambiguous (Mintzberg, 1979). A highly formalized mechanistic structure demands nearly all processes and procedures to be administratively authorized. On the other hand, it considers processes and procedures outside to those authorized protocols as variances which should be brought under control meaning that decision making in all dealings should be done by applying such provid ed procedures, policies, rules or instructions (Enotes/Studymaster). A mechanistic structure enables employee behaviour more predictable while enhancing standardization within the organization. For example, an employee is well aware of handling customer sales returns or accepting credit card payments. Formalization enables organizations to improve performance (Hahn, 2007). In contrast, it also curbs any opportunities for innovation and fresh ideas, since variations are not allowed or encouraged. Consequently, a mechanistic structure does not support or adapt quickly to changes in the external environment. Hence a mechanistic type of organizational structure is best suited for large organizations which operate in more stable environments where it helps to maximize the organizational efficiency while minimizing the cost through formalization and centralized decision making (Carpenter et al, 1969). Classical management theories perceive an organization as a machine (Fayol, 1949; Tay lor, 1911). Classical theories emphasis the need for bureaucracy within organizations resulting the lack of space towards creativity and innovativeness. Thus, Classical management theories encourage a mechanistic type of an organizational structure (Organizational Structure as Determinant of Organizational Performance: Uncovering Essential Facets of Organic and Mechanistic Structure). However, organizations that operate in a rapidly changing environment requires to frequently change their processes and procedures with the changes that take place in the external environment. Moreover, it requires taking action according to the situation in order to enhance adaptability to environment. Thus, formulation and authority which exist in mechanistic structures does not encourage deviating from defined processes and procedures. Therefore, mechanistic kind of organizational structure is not effective for organizations that operate in a dynamic environment. It can be seen, that mechanist ic organizations increase efficiency when tasks and technologies are relatively stable.  Meaning that stable environments and technology allow work to be clearly defined and differentiated. A scientific method should be used to separate work process to identify precise tasks, assign tasks in order to employees and monitor employee performance (Fayol, 1949; Taylor, 1911). Work activity of a mechanistic organization is separated into specific tasks. A specialized job position is created by assigning one or more specific tasks which requires rigidly defined set of skills, methodology and procedure to perform jobs. Furthermore, specific responsibilities or authority is assigned to each job function. Line managers and lower-level staff are to strictly perform assigned tasks according to strict procedures whereas few higher level managers monitor their performance. (Organizational Structure as Determinant of Organizational Performance: Uncovering Essential Facets of Organic and Mec hanistic Structure). Managers perform as planners and monitors in a mechanistic type of organization. This leads to high levels of efficiency by clear instructions to perform specific tasks. On the other hand, it provides fewer opportunities for innovation. Thus, innovation is restricted to achieve efficiency in the processes. However, this can be more suitable to improve efficiency in a stable environment rather than depending on innovative ideas. For example, Few customers, for instance, would want a McDonalds employee to use creativity in preparing their hamburger. Instead, the repetitiveness and stability of the procedure needed to cook a hamburger is more efficient when the employee follows established procedures and customers can trust that each hamburger they purchase will taste the same (Enotes/Studymaster). In contrast, a rapidly changing external environment requires innovative ideas to face external environment demand. Furthermore, it requires more flexibility in proce dures and processes to meet demands from the external environment. Employees would be given more flexibility to deal with their customers meaning that lower level employees would have a certain amount of liberty to make certain decisions in order to face the situation and solve problems. Thus, the mechanistic structure is less effective for organizations that operate in challenging environments. Centralized decision making in mechanistic type organizations enable few higher management personnel to actively be involved in decision making. Clear communication channels allow formal communication or information flows from top to bottom or vice versa. Classical theorists provides a view point that centralized decision making increases organizational efficiency and definitely results in better organizational performance (Gulick and Urwick, 1937; Weber, 1947). Classical theorists focus was more on hierarchical authority and pays less or no attention to the degree of employee participati on in decision making. Employee involvement in decision making is definitely an important aspect of any organizational structure and which directly influence organizational performance (Carter and Cullen, 1984; Khakani et al, 2012). Furthermore, centralized decision-making leads to the effective and efficient functioning of any bureaucratic structures (Goodsell, 1985). Scientific management of organizations is possible only if decision-making is restricted to few employees (upper level management) within organizations as discussed in the concept of Taylor (1911) (Mansoor, Aslam (2012). However, centralized decision making is more suited for stable and large organizations. Thus, in highly dynamic external environments, organizations require to act fast in order to survive within the in environment in which it operates. Therefore, certain amount of decision making power is required to decentralize and empower lower level employees. This helps them to react to quick changes that occ ur in the external environment. It is evident that the mechanistic type of structure would not sufficiently support organizations up to expectations when they are engaged within challenging external environments. Therefore, the extent to which formalization exists within an organization depends on the technology, size and the organizations traditions (Robbins 1990, Burton and Obel, 1998 (Mansoor, Aslam (2012). In a mechanistic structure, the clear distance between employees and management provide fewer opportunities to bring in new ideas by subordinates. Moreover, those who bring change can be threaded according to the X theory of Douglas McGregor. Therefore, resistance to change is high and innovation is not so much encouraged in organizations having a mechanistic type of organization hierarchy. (Armstrong, 2008). However, organizations face immense competition in todays challenging and dynamic external environment. Therefore, organizations with mechanistic structure face variou s difficulties when introducing quick changes due to the highly formalized nature of the hierarchy itself. However, learning is a critical factor that affects organizational development. The below diagram displays steps that are adhered to in single loop learning. Source : https://www.cognitivedesignsolutions.com/KM/Learning.htm Mechanistic type of organizations can use this model to improve efficiency in their processes. The single loop model focuses on analyzing actions and feedback to identify the gap between where we are and where we need to be. Therefore, changes are implemented as actions but not as governing variables (Create advantage). Kolbs (1984) classic interpretation of learning concisely describes the single-loop learning process and is considered a simplified version of the scientific method (Kolb 1984, Armstrong 2008).  Ãƒâ€š As discussed above, learning and implementing change requires flexibility within systems and procedures. The rigid structure in mechanistic organizations does not facilitate comfortable implementation of changes. A well-defined structure demands authorization of all changes and formal communication within organizations. In mechanistic type of structures communicating and formalizing all necessary changes takes a considerable effort and time where dynamic exte rnal environment demands quick changes. Therefore, companies face various challenges in adjusting to the external environment. Furthermore, implementation of change requires modifying tasks or roles where employees resist since their knowledge is more specific to a task or set of tasks. On the other hand, change may require training needs and considerable time to adapt which intern has an impact on efficiency of processes. Moreover, the amount of bureaucracy seen in mechanistic structures makes it difficult to introduce change. In conjunction, it reduces participation opportunities for employees in lower levels when deciding on changes. Clear distance between hierarchical levels of the organization and communication lines reduces awareness about such changes. Therefore, employees fear change and resist to innovation. It is of utmost importance to consider the rate of changes in technology and the external environment while deciding on the amount of formalization and specializatio n used within the mechanistic structure. Considering all these factors it can be decided that a mechanistic structure provides less space for rapid changes. Therefore, it is more suitable for large organizations operating in comparatively stable environments. Moreover, the type of organizational structure cannot be precisely identified as good or bad since it depends on the firms internal and external environments. An organization structure that suits a specific industry will necessarily be suited for another industry owing to many external factors such as competition and technological impacts. A mechanistic structure by nature is highly formalized and specialized with well defined procedures, processes and roles. Centralized decision making is one of the main features in a mechanistic structure. Higher level managers are involved in decision making whereas their subordinates are expected to carry out specific task or tasks within the department. Therefore, the mechanistic struct ure provides fewer opportunities for learning. However, the flexibility in the structure is a key to promote learning. Learning and innovation is highly required when dealing with changing and dynamic environments. Mechanistic structure does not provide enough flexibility to change or modify decision making according to situations. Therefore, a mechanistic type of structure is highly efficient for an organization which operates in a more stable environment. These features of mechanistic structures reduce opportunities for learning. Altering the level of mechanistic characteristics will help a firm to increase learning opportunities to some extent.

A Critical Review of Kelly’s Personality Theory in...

1. Introduction Personality is a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics that gives both consistency and individuality to a person’s behavior (Feist Feist, 2008). For centuries, philosophers, personality theorists and other thinkers have been trying to answer: what personalities are like, how personalities are developed, why different personalities are developed and how personalities can be changed (Pervin Cervone, 2013). George A. Kelly, an American psychologist born in 1905 in Kansa, is one of those major contributors in the field of personality psychology (Warren, 1998). In this paper, I am writing to critically review George A. Kellys perspective on personality. I will first review Kellys philosophy of†¦show more content†¦They are namely a.) Structure which concerns what personalities are like; b.) Process which concerns why people behave that way; c.) Development which concerns how personalities are developed over life course; d.) Psychopathology which concerns why some personalities are maladaptive and e.) Change which concern how personalities, especially abnormal personalities, can be changed. 3.1. Structure: What Personalities Are Like? In describing what personalities are like, Kelly abandons the classical threefold division of psychological phenomena: cognition, affection and conation (Kelly, 1955, p.130). Instead, he formulates his own personality theory with a single structure named Construct. In this section, lets review the concept of construct and some of its features. 3.1.1. Core Structure: Construct Construct is defined as a representation of the universe, a representation erected by a living creature and then tested against the reality of that universe (Kelly, 1955, p.12). According to Kelly, people make sense of the world by formulating their own models. They interpret things happened around them and organize those interpretations to construe their own models of reality. These models are called constructs by Kelly. 3.1.2. Dichotomy of Construct All constructs follow the bipolar or dichotomous form (Kelly, 1955, p.59). Kelly believes that people formulate constructs by distinguishing similarities and contrasts. For example, we findShow MoreRelatedOrganisational Theory230255 Words   |  922 Pages. Organization Theory Challenges and Perspectives John McAuley, Joanne Duberley and Phil Johnson . This book is, to my knowledge, the most comprehensive and reliable guide to organisational theory currently available. What is needed is a text that will give a good idea of the breadth and complexity of this important subject, and this is precisely what McAuley, Duberley and Johnson have provided. They have done some sterling service in bringing together the very diverse strands of workRead MoreConsumer Research in the Early Stages of New Product Development27148 Words   |  109 PagesConsumer research in the early stages of new product development Issues and applications in the food domain Ellen van Kleef Promotor: Co-promotor: prof. dr. ir. J.C.M. van Trijp Hoogleraar in de marktkunde en het consumentengedrag Wageningen Universiteit dr. ir. P.A. Luning Universitair docent Leerstoelgroep Productontwerpen en Kwaliteitskunde Wageningen Universiteit Promotiecommissie: prof. dr. ir. M.A.J.S. van Boekel, Wageningen Universiteit, Nederland prof. dr. K.G. GrunertRead MoreProject Mgmt296381 Words   |  1186 PagesSetting a resource schedule 6.5.2.4 Resource leveling 7.2 Setting a cost and time baseline schedule (1.3.5) [8.1.3] 6.5.2.3 Critical chain method Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Reducing Project Duration Leadership Chapter 2 Organization Strategy and Project Selection 1.4 Projects and programs (.2) 1.4.1 Managing the portfolio 1.4.3 Strategy and projects 2.3 Stakeholders and review boards 12.1 RFP’s and vendor selection (.3.4.5) 11.2.2.6 SWAT analysis 6.5.2.7 Schedule compression 9.4.2.5 LeadershipRead MoreSouthwest Airlines Case Study in 2010 Essay21106 Words   |  85 PagesWelch: You can have a job if you measure up.† Two thousand applicants responded, and those selected for interviews were asked to come dressed in hot pants to show off their legs—the company wanted to hire long-legged beauties with sparkling personalities. More than 30 of Southwest’s first graduating class of 40 flight attendants consisted of young women who were cheerleaders and majorettes in high school and thus had experience performing in front of people while skimpily dressed. †¢ A secondRead MoreExploring Corporate Strategy - Case164366 Words   |  658 Pageswhich have been chosen to enlarge speciï ¬ c issues in the text and/or provide practical examples of how business and public sector organisations are managing strategic issues. The case studies which follow allow the reader to extend this linking of theory and practice further by analysing the strategic issues of speciï ¬ c organisations in much greater depth – and often providing ‘solutions’ to some of the problems or difï ¬ culties identiï ¬ ed in the case. There are also over 33 classic cases on the CompanionRead MoreMarketing Mistakes and Successes175322 Words   |  702 Pagesand lead to lively class discussions, and even debates. In the gentle environment of the classroom, students can hone their analytical skills and also their persuasive skills—not selling products but selling their ideas—and defend them against critical scrutiny. This is great practice for the arena of business to come. NEW TO THIS EDITION In contrast to the early editions, which examined only notable mistakes, and based on your favorable comments about recent editions, I have again included

James Fenimore Cooper Essay Example For Students

James Fenimore Cooper Essay James Fenimore CooperJames Fenimore Cooper was born in Burlington, New Jersey on September 15, 1789 to William and Elizabeth Cooper. He was born the eleventh of twelve children. When James was one year old the family moved to the frontier of Lake Otsego, New York, and his father established the settlement of Cooperstown at the head of the Susquehanna River. Cooper attended a private prep school in Albany, New York, and was then admitted to Yale in 1803. He was expelled during his junior year because of a prank. His family allowed him to join the navy, but he soon found that more discipline was present in the Navy than at Yale. In 1810 Cooper took a furlough, and never returned to active duty. James Fenimore Cooper married Susan De Lancy in 1811, and for the next ten years he lived as a country gentleman. However, after the death of all five of his elder brothers he became responsible for supporting their widows and paying their debts. He then found out that his fathers estate had not been worth as much as originally thought. In 1820 Cooper published his first fiction, Precaution, on a challenge from his wife. This novel was largely unsuccessful. In 1821 he published his second book, The Spy, which was modeled after Sir Walter Scotts Waverly novels, except it was set during the American Revolution. The Spy brought Cooper international fame and a certain amount of wealth. Cooper established his reputation after his second novel, The Spy, and in his third book, the autobiographical Pioneers (1823), Cooper introduced the character of Natty Bumppo, a uniquely American personification of rugged individualism and the pioneer spirit. A second book featuring Bumppo, The Last of the Mohicans written in 1826, quickly became the most widely read work of the day, solidifying Coopers popularity in the U.S. and in Europe. Set during the French and Indian War, The Last of the Mohicans chronicles the massacre of the colonial garrison at Fort William Henry and a fictional kidnapping of two pioneer sisters. Cooper knew few Indians, so he drew on a Moravian missionarys account of two opposing tribes; the Delawares and the Mingos. Although this characterization was filled with inaccuracies, the dual image of the opposing tribes allowed Cooper to create a lasting image of the Indian that became a part of the American consciousness for almost two centuries. His public was simultaneously touched romantically at the doomed Indians fate and justified in abetting their extermination. The hero of the novel, Natty Bumppo, was incredibly popular, a rebel heroically opposed to industrial society, he was a hero who never married or changed his ideals. Cooper was a prolific writer, publishing 32 novels, 12 works of nonfiction, a play and numerous pamphlets and articles. His most lasting contributions to American literature were his five books about Natty Bumppo, varying in genre from implausible romantic adventure to realistic narrative. Later anthologized as The Leatherstocking Tales, they are best read in the order written: The Pioneers (1823), The Last of the Mohicans (1826), The Prairie (1827), The Pathfinder (1840), and The Deerslayer (1841). Coopers popularity declined in his later years as he entered into the nationalistic and partisan disputes of the Jacksonian era, becoming increasingly contentious toward reviewers and the public. Cooper died at Cooperstown on September 14, 1851, one day before his sixty-second birthday. Cooper was, and continues to be, and immensely popular writer, and he is generally considered to be the first major American novelist.

Result of US

Introduction The United States has had an eventful relationship with countries of Latin America. Latin America has historically been the US’s backyard as far as foreign policy is concerned (Cottam 4).Advertising We will write a custom coursework sample on Result of US-Venezuela Relations specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Given its diversity and active politics, various US administrations since Kennedy have focused on different issues including military operations to achieve predetermined political and social ambitions, narcotics control, humanitarian interventions and economic aid to Latin America. Sullivan reinforces Cottam’s suggestion that US policy concerns in Latin America mainly center on US funding for democracy projects, oil issues, human rights concerns, counter-narcotics and concerns about Venezuela’s involvement in Latin American politics (3). US policy images on Venezuela Relations A keen observer c an easily note that Venezuela features in all the above policy issues. Hugo Chavez had led the country since 1998 safe for a brief period in 2002 when he was overthrown through popular protests and pressure from the military. Given his position as leader of the country, his stance on US policies and his pursuit of populist policies in the country and elsewhere in Latin America, Chavez remains a key figure to success or failure of US policies in Venezuela. Despite close relations between US and Venezuela, there has been friction between him and various US administrations. During all those times, US foreign officials have been careful on their wording on Venezuela, especially stressing on the need for Chavez to accommodate some of the opposition’s grievances and Chavez’s adherence to democratic principles. It is important to note that the US’s approach in Venezuela is chiefly aimed at ensuring a continued steady supply of oil to the US at a reasonable and stable p rice.Advertising Looking for coursework on international relations? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More According to Clemente, some scholars on US’s Latin American policy conclude that US foreign policy officials view Latin American people, including Venezuela as temperamental, immature and incapable of self-governance (60). There is reluctance or plain lack of effort on the part of US officials to try to learn the exact needs of people of Venezuela. Clemente further asserts that many at times, US officials will ascribe negative moral traits to Latin American leaders like Chavez when these leaders oppose policies fronted by the US in South America (60). The above view by US officials fuels the image of inferior people in Venezuela, who have to subscribe to superior and seemingly â€Å"correct† US direction in the region. This perhaps informed the Bush administration’s support of the coup in Venezuela and suppo rt for opponents of Chavez in the pretext of promoting democracy. Implications The result of the above approach has been formulation of a somehow flawed US policy on Venezuela that is characteristic of unequal footing and lack of mutual trust. It is fair to conclude that the above image on Venezuela by the US is a little misguided. As such, its policy on the country is also likely to be error-prone, which may not be helpful in the long-term to US interests in the country. The above image by US officials has always been a pretext for intervention in Venezuela (Domingue and Fernandez de Castro 1). As noted earlier, the US has intervened in Venezuela through assistance of anti-Chavez groups that apparently promote democracy. The approach based on the above image has so far elicited unwanted reactions from Venezuela whose leader has embarked on a diplomatic counteroffensive in Latin America to counter US policies. Given the successful fueling of anti-US sentiment in Latin America by Ven ezuela, it is highly likely that US policy in the region will continue to meet resistance on various quarters. There is need for a shift in the thinking of US policymakers concerning the region. Continued basing of the policies on the above images will likely fuel a more interventionist-oriented US approach in South America which is likely to lead to more backlash.Advertising We will write a custom coursework sample on Result of US-Venezuela Relations specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Works Cited Clement, Christopher. â€Å"Latin American Perspectives: Venezuelan Exceptionalism Revisited†. New Perspectives on Politics and Society. 32. 3 (2005): 60-78. Cottam, Martha. Images and Intervention: U.S. Policies in Latin America, Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Press, 1994. Print. Domingue, Jorge, and Fernandez de Castro, Rafael. Contemporary U.S.-Latin American Relations: Cooperation or Conflict in the 21st Century, New York: Taylor and F rancis, 2010. Print. Sullivan, Mark. Venezuela: Political Conditions and U.S. Policy, Washington: US Congress, 2005. Print. This coursework on Result of US-Venezuela Relations was written and submitted by user Giselle Marsh to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.