Biology and Mechanics
In my opinion, the most fascinating
article included in this weeks reading was “Nature Intervenes: Organizations As
Organisms” by Gareth Morgan.(1998) In
this article, Morgan contends that a mechanical or systematic view of
organizations is flawed because it fails to account for the fundamental
humanity of an organization. (Morgan, 1998)
“…the design of organizations was viewed as a technical problem, and the
task of encouraging people to comply with the requirements of the
organizational machine was reduced to a problem of ‘paying the right rate for
the right job.’” (Morgan, 1998, p.37)
One of the more significant differences
between the mechanical view, and the biological view is the idea of a closed
(mechanical) vs. open (biological) system. (Morgan, 1998) Typically, the closed
view of organization did not account for the external forces that could shape
the organization and influence the efficiency of the system. (Galbraith, J.R.,
2002)
Luis Bettencourt and Geoffrey West
further explore this idea. They liken the interconnectedness and mechanics of
cities to the biological metabolic rate of mammals. (Bettencourt, L. & West, G. 2007) They
explored the metabolic rate of mammals, and discovered that they could predict
with significant accuracy the metabolic rate based on the animals body mass. (Bettencourt,
L. & West, G. 2007) Bettencourt and
West further extrapolated this data and found that a similar ratio existed
amongst businesses and cities. (2007) Although, the ratio was different, it
allows for significant degree of predictability in what should be a
traditionally unpredictable process. Their findings seem to support the idea,
that organizations, even large, seemingly unconnected organizations like cites,
can act and react like biological organisms. (I have included a link to the TED
video of Geoffrey West describing these findings below)
It seems that these are disparate
views, and stand in stark contradiction to one another. However, when we
explore this concept a little further, we can see that biology and mechanical
systems are branches of the same tree. When the first engineers began to create
complex mechanical systems, it is reasonable to assume that human biomechanics
influenced certain developments. Even today, certain mechanical coupling
devices are designated as “male” and “female” according to mechanical
anatomy. Modern robots operate with
mechanical “arms” whose joints bend and twist like elbows and wrists.
Nature and biology are the first
analogs that mankind has to reference. It is only natural that it would influence man-made mechanics and structures.
We can see that cities resemble organisms, and cells, with wires and roads
acting as arteries and capillaries. (Bettencourt, L. & West, G. 2007) All man-made systems will have similarities
to nature and biology because it is impossible for man to escape his own
biology. Although Morgan’s article was fascinating and offered powerful insights,
I feel it suffered slightly from metaphor myopia. It seems to me that this is
not an “either –or” proposition. Nature and mechanics are so similar in design
and structure because most of mechanical design has a basis in nature. It is not a question of whether organizations
resemble biology or mechanics, or which metaphor is more appropriate. Both
metaphors have strengths and weaknesses, and all metaphors are simply analogs
for reality and inherently flawed. We ought to recognize the strengths and weaknesses
of all, and seek to maximize the benefit of each, by applying them
appropriately to relevant situations.
References
Bettencourt, L.,. Lobo,
J.,. Helbing, D.,. Kühnert, C.&. West, G.B. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of
life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. 104 (17),
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC185232
9/pdf/zpq7301.pdf.
Galbraith, J.R.
(2002). Introduction. Designing
organizations: an executive guide to strategy, structure, and process (pp.
1-8). San Francisco, CA: Wiley & Sons.
Morgan,
G. (1998). Images of
Organization. (2nd ed., pp.35-67). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications
West, G. (2012).
TED.com. [Video].
Retrieved 9/23/2012 from
Jason, very thoughtful post. You make a good point that all metaphors have limitations. Can you consider the application of these two distinct metaphors to your own organization? What sorts of issues does each bring to light? What sorts of issues are overlooked?
ReplyDeleteI think the closed mechanical system definitely applies to aspects of my organization. There is a very distinct and organized process that needs to occur in the production of our outputs. This is highly structured and segmented. Much like an assembly line, there are several dependent variables in the process that have to happen in a very mechanical way. On the other hand, our organization goes to great lengths ensuring that the physical, “biological” needs of the employees are taken care of. We have the typical health benefits, and 401k, but there are plenty of opportunities for social interaction (there are several rooms on each floor with billiards, table tennis, video games, snacks and drinks etc.). Each employee meets with their manager once a week to discuss feedback, career goals, stresses, and victories over the previous week to provide the support stronger self-actualization and ego.
ReplyDeleteYou make interesting points about the need to consider aspects of both mechanical and biological systems. It sounds as though your company has a progressive view in that it recognizes the need for both mechanical systems in terms of production processes but has not sacrificed employee satisfaction. Your point is well taken that Morgan has "metaphor myopia" (great phrase, btw!). However, I disagree because I think Morgan (1998) is speaking to executives who have not yet realized the need to "adapt and survive in a changing environment" (p. 35). Based on my experience, the majority of organizations have laser-like focus on the mechanical side of things and tend to act as though they assume the biological side of things will fall into place naturally. Your company, and I hope it is wildly successful, has obviously put a great deal of effort into building a sustainable, balanced entity. I don't know actual numbers, but I suspect this is the exception rather than rule for the most part.
ReplyDelete