employee relations and motivation the machine metaphor of organization: scientific management and...

Employee Relations and Motivation

The Machine Metaphor of Organization: Scientific Management and Bureaucracy


Integrative Framework I: Two Models of Organization and their Implications for Theory and Practice

The Machine Metaphor of Organization

Efficient organizations operate “like clockwork” Pervasive Philosophy Routinized, efficient, reliable machines Humans must be made to fit the machine Characterised by 2 main types of organization Bureaucracies Organizations based on Taylor’s Scientific

Management (often but not always manufacturing industry)

The Machine Metaphor of Organization

Dominant View of Human Nature: Theory X (McGregor, 1960) Ordinary people are inherently:

Lazy, self-centred, lacking in ambition/willingness to take responsibility, passive and conformist, resistant to change, gullible and not very bright, motivated by “sticks and carrots”

Managers must therefore: Organize, direct, persuade, punish, reward and

control workers to meet the needs of the organization

Consequence or cause of industrial practices???

Some History

Nothing new? Use of machines to make labour easier: ancient

Egyptians, Roman engineers Organizing large workforces: ditto Egyptians,

ancient Chinese, Stonehenge! Bureaucracies: Romans armies and civil

administration, Medieval Church Factories/Mass Production: Romans again eg

pottery works But... Before Industrial Revolution most manufacturing

activity was Home based, involved family groups, often self-employed, small scale, highly skilled, often part-time/intermittent

Industrial Revolution

Large expensive machinery and plant: Return on investment

Water/Steam power/mass production methods: concentrated work in factories, required large labour force close to plant

Work involved: long hours, repetitive jobs, division of labour (much use women and children)

But... Before 20th Century many jobs were still highly skilled and

craftsmen worked at own pace Problems for employers: how was labour to be organized and

controlled?

All change: Taylorism and Scientific Management (time and motion studies); Fordism (moving assembly line)

Bureaucracy

Original idea philanthropic: means to regulate arbitrary power of owners over the workforce

Weber: Definition “A form of organization which emphasizes precision,

speed, clarity, regularity, reliability & efficiency achieved through the creation of a fixed division of tasks, hierarchical supervision and detailed rules and regulations”

Hallmarks:rational and quasi-legal systempeople derive authority from fixed roles in hierarchyroles and procedures clear – what to do and howregulations curbed arbitrary exercise of power

Bureaucracy

Weber: Criticisms Bureaucracy had the potential to routinize and

mechanize every aspect of human life, eroding human spirit, capacity for creativity, flexibility and human action

Leads to alienation and “not my job’s worth” attitudes

Still a major problem! Public services: accountability, “bean counting”, paperwork: police spending 50% of time form filling!

Does it stifle creativity and innovation?

Principles of Classical Management Theory (from Morgan)

Unity of command: orders from 1 superior only Scalar chain: line of authority from top to bottom, channel for

communication and decision making Span of control: not too large to hinder communication etc Staff & line: staff can advise but not violate line authority Initiative: encouraged at all levels Division of work: specialization to achieve goals efficiently Authority and responsibility: power to give orders & exact

obedience Centralization (of authority): top-down; varies Discipline: obedience, application etc adherence to rules Subordination of individual to general interest Equity: fair treatment Stability of tenure of personnel Esprit de corps: harmony as basis of strength

Scientific Management

Grew out of Classical Management Theory (dating back to Frederick the Great’s Prussian army)

Still permeates management practices eg Management by Objectives has strong element of “mechanistic” management

Top Management controls organization by setting goals – those lower down achieve performance targets

(Depends on degree of control at each tier of the hierarchy and discretion to achieve goals)

Compare eg. targets in NHS, national literacy standards, participation in HE – control begets more!

Stipulating goals but not means – US Space programme

Taylor’s Five Principles of Scientific Management

1. Shift all responsibility for the organization of work from the worker to the manager: managers should do all the thinking relating to the planning and design of work, leaving workers with the task of implementation

2. Use scientific methods to determine the most efficient way of doing work: design the worker’s task accordingly; specify the precise way in which work is to be done

3. Select the best person to do work thus designed

4. Train worker to do it efficiently

5. Monitor worker performance to ensure procedures are followed and targets are met

Time and Motion Studies

Standardize work activities to achieve maximum efficiency, effort and time

Eg. Schmidt (pig iron handler) see video Production increased 280% (12.5 to 47.5 tons per

day) Time and motion = observing & analysing tasks

into simplest components and working out most efficient way to perform them

So worker forced to behave like a machine in very precise and regular ways

Tasks split to simplest components become deskilled, routinized and monotonous

People thought to be motivated by extrinsic rewards – pay and fear of sack

Fordism: Completed Mass Production Revolution

Henry Ford: huge boost by invention of moving assembly line

Complete control of organization and pace of work Control over workforce achieved by: Management setting speed of line “Stick and carrot” motivators: no Trades Unions so

threat of job loss; high wages; perks eg “buy your own car” schemes: Easy to replace unskilled workers

Huge increase in productivity achieved at human cost But.. Created affluent Western consumer societies;

great increases in standards of living See video: “On the Line”

Resistance to Extinction: (Taylor, 1998; Wall & Martin, 1994; Wright & Lund, 1996)

Strengths: reliable & consistent products at low cost; high productivity and profitability

Despite worker empowerment, smarter automation and autonomous work groups principles remain (increasingly overseas)

Wright & Lund (1996) Computerised Taylorism): introduction of new engineering standard systems

Adler & colleagues (1993, 1998): Democratic Taylorism: worker participation in job analysis for new systems of performance measurement

More subtle control: “hearts and minds” of HRM; but also coercive control eg call centres & fast food

Warhurst & Thompson (1998); Mabey et al (1998); Herriot (2001) for references

Management Strategies Based on Machine Metaphor

Motivators: salary and perks; the privilege of having a job; performance related pay; reinforcement theories but extrinsic reward systems often backfire because they reward the wrong things and punish the right things

See Kerr (1974) “The folly of rewarding A whilst hoping for B” & Komaki et al in Steers, Porter & Bigley (1996)

Leadership Style: Transactional (traditional management:

Dealing with the given: planning, organizing, staffing, budgeting, problem solving, creating procedures and systems for maintaining order and predictability – Doing things right (Guest 1996)

Management Strategies Based on Machine Metaphor

Alimo-Metcalfe (1997) Transactional Leadership “limited to manager’s ability to provide a quid pro quo reward or negative feedback to a follower who responds to his or her instructions or agreed objectives”

Design of Work: “machine minders” (increasing automation); deskilling (eg. call centres); increasing use of shiftwork; Total Quality Management; targets, audits, governance

All strategies have at their core: People can be shaped to become part of the

machinery of the organization Is this a bad thing???


The Organic Metaphor of Organization: Open Systems Theory

The Organic Metaphor of Organization

Origins: Von Bertalanffy (1950) a biologist

Living organisms are seen as a collection of parts interacting and functioning as a harmonious whole in a continuous process of exchange and interaction with the environment

Living organisms are thus complex open systems

Ideas explicitly applied to organizations by Katz & Khan (1978)

But ideas had been developing throughout 1950s, 60s & 70s

The Organic Metaphor of Organization

Organizations as Complex Open SystemsOrganizations can be thought of as being complex systems like biological organisms such as the human body, made up of thousands of interacting parts which take inputs from the environment, transform them in some way and produce outputs back into the environment. Since the parts are interdependent, changes in one part can have profound and unpredictable effects on the other parts of the network.The system must adapt to the demands of its external environment but at the same time it must preserve its internal stability whilst engaging in constant change. Complex systems can be analysed at many levels from the total organism within its environment to the workings of an individual cell. Similarly, understanding a work organization and people’s behaviour within it can range from the analysis of the historical, political, economic and cultural environment in which it operates, through the social interactions within work groups to the goals, aspirations and abilities of individual workers.

Dominant Philosophy of Human Nature

Theory Y (McGregor, 1960) People are not by nature passive, lazy etc but they become so

because of experience of organizational life People naturally want: Challenge, development, achievement and recognition and will

work hard to get these in the right conditions People can learn to want: Responsibility & self direction; commitment to organizational

goals People are: Naturally motivated to work for goals that they value (including

organizational goals); intelligent and capable of imagination and innovation in solving organizational problems

Management must align individual and organizational goals

Sources of Organizational Complexity (Schein, 1988)

Boundaries: Where does a large company end and its community

begin? What is the relevant environment – Society in

general, all companies in the same market, economic and political system, global economy???

Need to specify environmental origin of forces which act on organizations

Stakeholders: suppliers, customers, publics, shareholders


Multiple Purposes and Functions Primary: product or service for profit; public service Secondary: eg security and meaning for a community

via jobs; consumers for local businesses Equals conflicting demands: Eg. HE – manifest

functions such as teaching and research vs latent functions eg. sorting talent for society, promoting social cohesion and inclusiveness, providing local employment, contributing to local & national economy, what else???


Representatives of External Environment Employees are members of society, community,

other groups eg. professional bodies, unions, consumer, religious and family groups

Multiple roles Bring demands, expectations, cultural norms etc that

can conflict with organizational norms Partial involvement of workforce Coalitions, factions, interest groups, sub-cultures

within organizations


Rapid Environmental Change Technology Economic sector Socio-political Cultural values “Turbulent” Requires different capacity to respond: need to be

proactive not reactive Result: mechanistic organization – ordered hierarchy

of roles etc seen as too simplistic More complex theories of organization needed to

explain what researchers and practitioners actually find in organizations

Characteristics of Open Systems (Katz & Khan, 1978)

Importation of energy, throughput and output (often involves knowledge in contemporary work)

Negative entropy – constant change to avoid Negative feedback – correcting for errors Dynamic equilibrium – adaptation and stability Differentiation – enough internal complexity to cope

with external complexity Integration and Co-ordination – harmoniously

functioning whole Equifinality – no-one can predict the final outcome(s)

Open Systems Theory Applied to Work Organizations: History

Von Betalanffy (1950) Homans (1950) organizations exist in a 3 part

mutually dependent environment Physical Cultural Technological Environment specifies activities & interactions that

engender feelings and sentiments. Changes in any one of these produces changes in the other two

New sentiments, norms and activities, not necessarily specified by external environment, leads to development of an informal system within the official, formal system


Talcott Parsons (1960s) Social systems have 4 basic needs: Adaptation, Goal Attainment, Integration, Pattern

Maintenance Khan et al (1964) Organizations composed of overlapping role sets Role overload, role ambiguity, role conflict – related

to stress and job dissatisfaction Cyert & March (1963) Organizations composed of coalitions &

organizational life a process of negotiation, bargaining & power play between shifting coalitions in accordance with environmental demands


Scott (1987) Defines an open system organization as: “a coalition of shifting interest groups which develop

goals through negotiation. The structure of coalitions, their activities and outcomes are strongly influenced by environmental factors”

Openness is not an absolute value but is determined by the extent of its transactions with the environment


Turbulent Environments Stable Environments

Open-Rational Open-Natural Closed-Rational

Closed-Natural

Capitalist enterprises eg IT industry

Socialistic eg service organizations. Eg NHS

Capitalistic enterprises with little need to interact with environment. -rare

Socialistic eg religious communities


Tavistock Institute (Rice, 1963; Trist, 1963) Socio-technical systems All organizations are composed of a social system –

the people – and a technical system – machines etc These 2 systems need to be in harmony and the

technical system must meet the needs of people Important ideas: system imports information from the environment Partial involvement of the workforce emphasized Led to shop floor democracy & autonomous work

groups

Management Strategies Based on Organic Metaphor

Motivators: social factors, needs satisfaction, self

actualizationWork as its own rewardPeople want challenge, autonomy, interest & recognition in their work

Leadership Style: Transformational Leadership “Creating the conditions for adaptive change to meet

the demands of an uncertain and turbulent environment – doing the right things” (Guest, 1996)

Manager as female??? Connectedness, co-operation, teamwork, mutual support: Manager as facilitator and servant!

Management Strategies Based on Organic Metaphor

Design of Work: Job enrichment, autonomy and responsibility, Self-directed (autonomous teams), worker participation and control, socio-technical systems harmony

Dominant Theme People work best when their physical, psychological

and social needs are met: work and work organizations must be designed to fit people rather than vice versa

But... Have these 2 traditions merged? Do employers

“want it all” – compliant, obedient workforces plus intelligent, innovative, committed, self-starters?

“Hard” HRM – treats the workforce like the plant and machinery – commodities to be deployed efficiently

“Soft” HRM – employees deserve respect, care and development

What about “hearts and minds” so workers control themselves? (Thought police – attempts to control attitudes as well as behaviour?)

Does rhetoric of empowerment & job satisfaction really mean more work, more responsibility and more stress for no more reward?

employee relations and motivation the machine metaphor of organization: scientific management and...

Documents