Материал: Management-and-Organization-Behavior

depend on the social fabric of society. Values and tastes certainly change over time, but these changes do not usually occur so unexpectedly or so rapidly that service firms cannot adjust to them. The characteristic flexibility of service firms helps them adapt rapidly to such changes. Firms that produce products can also predict trends in the environment. For example, Apple’s decision to position itself more strongly in the business computer market was motivated in part by the overall decline in the student population (Apple’s traditional strength), which resulted from changes in demographic trends that were apparent well before they actually affected the number of students.

Holiday Inn is another example of a company that is adjusting its business to predictable changes. In this case, changes in the social characteristics of potential lodging customers. Specifically, the rising number of women in the work force has created a need to ensure that lodging facilities accommodate female as well as male executives. And the declining number of families has reduced the emphasis on family centered accommodation.

Turbulent Environment

Turbulent environment is marked by swift, frequent, and radical changes that occur with little or no warning. In the early stages of development of an industry, its environment is often turbulent as a new technology quickly emerges to replace an older one, new products or models are rapidly introduced to supersede yesterday’s and (often) regulations are imposed to reign in the rapidly changing industry. Usually this turbulence is temporary, and the industry and its surviving organizations soon settle down into a less volatile state. The computer industry, however, is an exception. It has operated in a turbulent environment for several decades now.

Consumer electronic products constitute one of the most rapidly changing industries worldwide. A model introduced in one season of the year, such as a VCR, Camera, Cell Phone is often rendered obsolete by new models – and even new technologies – available the next season.

145

Mechanistic Vs. Organic Structures

Some of the pioneering work on the relationship between organization design and environment was done by Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker. They found that successful organizations were designed differently in different environments. They distinguished between two types of organization design: a mechanistic design and an organic design.

A mechanistic Design follows Weber’s bureaucratic model very closely in that it is characterized by specialized activities, specific rules and procedures, an emphasis on formal communication and a well-defined chain of command. Because mechanistic designs tend to be inflexible and resistant to change, this type of design is more successful in a stable environment. The U.S. Army offers a good example of a mechanistic design.

In an organic design, task activities are loosely defined. There are very few rules and procedures, and great emphasis is laid on self-control, participative problem solving and horizontal communication. Organic designs are more successful in dynamic, rapidly changing environments that require adaptability to change. Apple’s early organization design was organic. The personal computer industry (which Apple pioneered) was rapidly changing, and this design was well suited to those early days of a new industry.

Comparison of Mechanistic and Organic Organizations

146

Burns and Stalker did not suggest that organizations should essentially adopt any one these two design models. They recognized that the environment surrounding each firm is unique and that each firm must design its structure accordingly. The mechanistic and organic designs are not “either – or” design options; rather, they exist at opposite ends of a

147

continuum along which an organization’s design is characterized.

Later work by Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch supported Burns and Stalker’s findings. Lawrence and Lorsch studies several firms in three different industries and found that more effective forms had designs that matched their environments. The effective firms in stable industries had mechanistic organization designs, whereas the most effective firms in turbulent industries had organic designs.

Impact of Technology on Organization Design

As we have said, technology has internal as well as external dimensions. There is a tendency to associate technology only with factories and machines, but in terms of organization design, its meaning is much broader. Technology encompasses all the tools, equipment, processes, actions, materials, and knowledge required to convert an organization’s inputs into outputs that can be distributed as useful goods or services. This definition makes it possible for such diverse activities as teaching students, dry cleaning clothes and assembling automobiles all to be considered technologies. In this sense, technology is an internal dimension; it is the way the organization goes about doing the work it exists to do. A Professor can teach a course with three hundred students in one class; another course might be restricted to thirty-five students. The former would probably require the lecture format, or technology, whereas the thirty-five student class could be taught via several technologies, including the case method, lectures, and group projects. Similarly, a dry cleaner can choose among several ways to provide dry cleaning services. In either example, the “technology” whereby the work is done may vary. And different technologies affect the degree of specialization or standardization necessary, the type of coordination mechanism needed the levels at which decisions should be made and the optimal size of organizational units.

Joan Woodward

Much of the pioneering work of the relationship between technology and organization design was done by Joan Woodward. She found that differences in technological complexity accounted for differences in the way effective organizations were designed. Her scale for measuring technological complexity consisted of three major categories: unit and

148

small-batch technology, large-batch and mass production technology and continuous-process technology. Woodward assigned a firm’s technological complexity to one of these three categories on the basis of the extent to which its manufacturing processes were automated and standardized.

Unit and Small-batch Technology is consistent with the notion of a job shop. Custom-made items (such as tailored clothing) and items only one of which is produced (such as portraits) are examples of unit production. Small-batch technology is the production of small quantities of items with each production run. Print shops wherein each customer’s order must be set and run separately utilize small-batch technology. Unit and small-batch technology is the least complex of Woodward’s categories because it offers little opportunities for using automated and standardized techniques. Most of the work done by professionals such as doctors, lawyers and managers could be considered unit technology.

Large-Batch and Mass-Production Technology: The most common example of large-batch and mass-production technology is an assembly line, where large number of the same product is produced. This kind of production utilizes mechanization and standardized parts. Almost all consumer durable goods such as automobiles and appliances are produced in this manner.

Continuous-Process Technology utilizes fewer workers than does mass production, because most of the process is automated. A continuous stream of raw-material input is actually transformed into a continuous flow of output, not into separate, definable units. The process often changes the material composition of the inputs. Most refinery operations, such as petroleum, chemicals or sugar are considered continuous process technologies. This category is the most complex in Woodward’s scheme, because the processes involved are almost always completely automated.

Woodward found that several design components varied with the organization’s type of technology. As technological complexity increased, the number of levels of management increased (that is, the organization structure became taller), the span of control of top management increased, and the ratio of line to staff workers increased. However, the span of control for lower-level managers was greater for technologies intermediate in complexity. This is probably because large-batch and mass-production

149