As organizations grew larger than small groups of people who likely knew each other well, they began to be viewed as mechanical systems. And that made sense – given that those large organizations were military and later manufacturing in nature. It is this mechanical view of organizations that gave us specific job descriptions, organizational charts, and specialized work. These are things we take for granted and sometimes get maligned.
But what other option is there?
When we view organizations as machines, we can see them as things – with fixed inputs and outputs, solvable problem diagnosis, and people as replaceable parts.
But what if we thought about organizations as organisms (note the common root word, by the way) rather than machines. What then?
Organizations as Living Things
I’m not suggesting a metaphor that is new or unique – in fact, you could trace the roots of this metaphor back 500 years. But the comparison of organizations to mechanistic and organismic structures goes back to at least the 1960’s. Tom Burns and George Stalker claimed that “a mechanistic management system is appropriate to stable conditions” whereas an “organismic form is appropriate to changing conditions, which give rise constantly to fresh problems and unforeseen requirements for action which cannot be broken down or distributed automatically arising from the functional roles defined with a hierarchic structure.” (Italics are mine.)
Read this again and think about the world you work, lead and live in today. I’m guessing it feels far more like the italicized section than “stable conditions.”
And if you agree with that, you might be thinking – what do we need to do to throw out all the mechanical stuff, and what would leading an organism look like?
Slow down, just a minute.
Both/And
I’m not trying to lead you or trick you into a choice. I’m trying to help you see that your team, and your organization have things in common with both mechanical things and organisms.
You don’t have to pick – and I would suggest you shouldn’t. Rather, you will be most effective, have the clearest perspective and make the wisest decisions when you consider both views as valid and helpful.
Organizations are kinda like machines, and they are kinda like living things too.
Is it helpful to think about processes and have clear lines of communication? You can thank a mechanical view of organizations for these things.
Do we benefit when we think about the interconnected nature of work, the distribution of knowledge and information, and the need for lateral communication pathways? That’s thinking like biology there.
While both can be true, back to Burns and Stalker.
In a world that is less stable, more uncertain, and more interconnected, the value and need of thinking about the organization as a living thing is increasingly helpful.
Note: Being a Flexible Leader, we think about many things in a both/and way. We go deeper and give you more tools for doing and applying this thinking in my new book: Flexible Leadership: Navigate Uncertainty and Lead with Confidence. This book gives you a full understanding of what it means to be a Flexible Leader and provides you with a toolkit for becoming more effective and flexible.
0 comments