Mullins L.J. Management and organisational behaviour, Seventh edition

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

■ There are a number of variables and other factors which affect organisation struc-

tures and systems of management. Earlier approaches to organisation and management

believed in one best form of structure and tended to concentrate on limited aspects of

organisation. The contingency approach, however, emphasises the need for flexibility

and takes the view that there is no one best structure or system of management. If cer-

tain situational factors exist, then certain variables in organisation structure and

systems of management are most appropriate.

■ Situational factors may be identified in a number of ways and a number of studies

have been carried out into the extent to which these contingency factors influence

organisational design and effectiveness. Among the most important contingency fac-

tors are size of organisation, technology and environment. A particular concern for

global companies is the need to balance the benefits of size with the liabilities of a

complex, slow-moving and bureaucratic structure.

■

As with other approaches to organisation and management, the contingency approach

has been subject to a number of criticisms or doubts about its practical value to manage-

ment. However, despite the criticisms and limitations it has provided a further insight into

our understanding of relationships among factors influencing the structure, management

and operations of organisations. The contingency approach also draws attention to the

importance of different structures for different activities of the organisation.

■ The movement towards tighter and leaner organisations has drawn attention to

the importance of alternative forms of structure and places increased emphasis on the

demand for flexibility and the flexible firm. Economic pressures and rapid develop-

ments in information technology have highlighted the need for review of structural

design. One particular approach to flexible structural design, and the core and comple-

mentary model of employment, is the concept of the ‘shamrock’ organisation.

■ Important studies concerning technology include those by Woodward who draws

attention to patterns of organisation and production systems, and business success;

and Perrow on the variability and analysis of technology. Two important studies on the

effects of the environment on the management and structure of organisations include

work by Burns and Stalker who have drawn attention to the significance of the distinc-

tion between the characteristics of mechanistic and organic structures; and Lawrence

and Lorsch on the differentiation and integration of internal structures.

■ There is an increasing tendency towards temporary work and there is also likely to

be a noticeable increase in staff seeking part-time and flexible working including job-

sharing and term-time-only working. Recent advances in computerisation and

telecommunications have had a further significant effect on opportunities for flexible

working. An increasingly common means of working is telecommuting. If implemented

and managed properly, telecommuting can be a valuable asset to an organisation and to

the people it employs. The use of information communications technology draws atten-

tion to appropriate structures of organisation and systems of management.

CHAPTER 16 PATTERNS OF STRUCTURE AND WORK ORGANISATION

655

Given the speed of technological change, an increasing rate of innovation, and growing demands

by a more highly educated work force, many scholars suggest that the classical view of organiza-

tions will become outdated. In response to the resulting frustration, bureaucracies will begin to

fade away and will be replaced by more creative forms of organization.

Vecchio, R. P. Organizational Behavior, Core Concepts, Fourth edition, Dryden Press (2000), p. 320.

How would you design a more creative form for your own (or some other chosen)

organisation?

SYNOPSIS

PART 6 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES

1 Explain what is meant by the contingency approach to organisation. How does the con-

tingency approach differ from other approaches to organisation and management?

2 Discuss critically, with your own supporting examples, the effects of technology on

organisation structure.

3 Contrast ‘mechanistic’ and ‘organic’ systems of management practice and structure.

What is the significance of this distinction? Given a choice, which system would you

prefer to work within?

4 Explain what is meant by ‘differentiation’ and ‘integration’ of the internal structure of an

organisation. What are the implications of differentiation and integration, and what mech-

anisms might be adopted to achieve integration?

5 Assess critically the value and contribution of contingency theory to the structure, man-

agement and operation of work organisations. Give your own examples of situational

factors which are likely to account for variations in the structure and management of dif-

ferent organisations.

6 Discuss the demand for increased flexibility in patterns of work organisation and struc-

tural design, and give examples of flexible working arrangements in an organisation of

your choice.

7 To what extent have you seen evidence of the ‘shamrock organisation’ in relation to the

structure of your own or some other chosen organisation?

8 What are your views on the influence of recent advances in computerisation and

telecommunications for patterns of structure and work organisation?

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

In self-selecting groups of three or four, visit a work organisation of your choice.

a Investigate and make notes about:

(i) the nature and main purpose of the organisation;

(ii) its size;

(iii) the nature of technology/‘production’ systems;

(iv) characteristics of the staff employed;

(v) main environmental influences; and

(vi) any other relevant factors.

b Obtain, or prepare, a chart depicting the structural design of the organisation.

c Using your knowledge of the contingency approach, comment on the apparent effective-

ness of the structure of the organisation and/or particular departments of the organisation.

Identify what you believe to be good and bad examples of structure.

d Explain, with supporting reasons, what changes to structure you would recommend in

order to help improve organisational performance.

e Where appropriate, prepare a revised organisation chart.

ASSIGNMENT

656

CHAPTER 16 PATTERNS OF STRUCTURE AND WORK ORGANISATION

OBJECTIVES

Completing this exercise should help you to enhance the following skills:

 Identify and contrast actual features of different structures within organisations.

 Evaluate the significance today of this distinction.

 Recognise the effect of different structures on people within organisations.

 Act the role of a senior manager.

EXERCISE

Drawing on the information given in Table 16.3, you are required to:

1 Prepare a detailed comparison and analysis of ways in which your own organisation (or

some other organisation well known to you) tends to displays characteristic features of

mechanistic and organic structures.

2 Prepare detailed notes on:

– the effectiveness of structure in relation to systems and styles of management, the

various activities of the organisation and the people employed; and

– different perceptions of both mechanistic and organic features, and examples of tension

and conflict which arise from a mix of both structures.

3 As a senior manager, explain fully what actions you would recommend in order to help

overcome these tensions and conflicts.

DISCUSSION

■ What is the real strategic value of organisational structure and who should be involved in

the design of structure?

■ What is the impact of technology and technological change on the significance of mecha-

nistic or organic structures?

■ Given a forced choice, explain, with supporting reasons, which form of structure you would

most prefer to work within.

Visit our website www.booksites.net/mullins for further questions, annotated weblinks,

case material and Internet research material.

PERSONAL AWARENESS AND SKILLS EXERCISE

657

658

PART 6 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES

CASE STUDY 16.1

Bureaucracy could seriously damage your health: staff

empowerment at City Hospital

A formal report, written by the State Hospital

Inspectors, concluded that the City Hospital’s per-

formance was falling well behind the national

performance indicators and targets set for all hospi-

tals. The report’s conclusion stated that the hospital

was failing its patients. It said that the organisation’s

bureaucratic structure prevented it from achieving its

objective, which was to be far more customer-orien-

tated. It stated that the hospital’s preoccupation with

formal procedures hindered its ability to be flexible

when responding to the needs of the patients.

Too many policies and too much form filling

were imposed by the senior management on the

operational staff such as nurses and doctors. The

consequences of this extra paperwork resulted in

fewer patients being treated as quickly and as com-

petently as they could have been. To enable the

hospital to reduce its waiting lists for patients need-

ing an operation, the Inspectors suggested that a

more flexible organisation structure was required.

They said that one possible way to achieve this

objective would be for the hospital to empower its

front line staff by decentralising and delegating

decision-making to the doctors and nurses.

The senior management had serious reservations

regarding the recommendations in the Inspector’s

report. They commented that a hospital was very dif-

ferent to a private enterprise, because its main concern

is the welfare of the patients and not profit. They also

stated that a bureaucratic system of organisation and

specialisation was the most appropriate way to organ-

ise a hospital. This, they suggested, was because of the

need for tried and tested procedures, implemented by

well-trained specialist professionals. Bureaucracy

ensured that mistakes seldom occur and consequently

did not put the welfare of the patients at risk.

YOUR TASKS

As independent business adviser, produce a report

for the management of the City Hospital which

answers the following questions.

(a) Explain the limitations of bureaucratic organisa-

tional systems.

(b) Identify the strengths of the bureaucratic system

that is used and supported by the hospital’s

senior management.

front line staff. How would this improve the effi-

ciency of the hospital?

(d) Provide recommendations on how the hospital

can increase its efficiency to give its patients a

better service.

CASE STUDY 16.2

Could I have an estimate? Organisational structure at

Fabrique Décor

Fabrique Décor was established in the late 1980s by

Freda and Brian Rickson when they were in their

middle thirties and wanted a change from working

in a large organisation. Mrs Rickson was essentially

the ideas person, very creative with a flair for inter-

preting clients’ requirements.

Mr Rickson’s contribution to the business was as

organiser of the practical workforce. This consisted

of self-employed artisans and part-time tradesmen.

He also managed the purchase of materials and sub-

contract services such as curtain making.

The business was based in a suite of offices in a

multi-purpose commercial building. No stocks of

materials were held directly by Fabrique Décor. All

materials were ordered to Freda Rickson’s specifica-

tions and delivered to the client’s site for the

tradesmen to complete the work in line with Mrs

Rickson’s instructions.

CHAPTER 16 PATTERNS OF STRUCTURE AND WORK ORGANISATION

In the early years this arrangement appeared to

work well. The numbers of tradesmen were rela-

tively small and most of them were known by Brian

Rickson. He was able to keep check on the progress

of each contract and Freda Rickson was equally able

to monitor the quality of the work. She visited each

site regularly to liaise with the clients to ensure that

they were satisfied and to incorporate any changes

the client may require.

The offices were staffed by three personnel.

Freda infrequently used her office, then mainly for

initial discussions with clients. Most of the design-

ing and planning was completed at the clients’

premises with their active co-operation. Brian was

more in evidence at the office suite, but of neces-

sity, spent a great amount of time overseeing the

various sites.

The three permanent staff at the offices were Mrs

May Kemp (62), Miss Helen Goren (30) and Ms Tina

Patch (25).

May Kemp had been with Freda ad Brian since

the very early days of the business: she was totally

capable of managing all the facets of the business.

She was also well able to cope with the idiosyn-

crasies of her two employers. Freda and Brian were

very different characters. Freda had a mercurial

temperament and Brian tended to be a bit laid-

back. Too laid-back for Freda’s liking, but May

always seemed able to smooth things over.

May Kemp managed all the financial aspects of

the business in association with an outside account-

ant who could be relied upon to appear when

needed. It was May who paid suppliers and trades-

men and invoiced the clients. She checked purchase

orders and delivery notes.

Delivery notes raised difficulties as she could only

check against information given by tradesmen at

the sites. When she had any doubts she was able to

persuade Brian Rickson to physically check the situ-

ation at the site.

In all these responsibilities May was assisted by

Tina Patch.

Helen Goren acted as receptionist when neces-

sary, answered the telephone and assisted with

general office duties.

Both Tina and Helen used the information tech-

nology facilities for word processing, accounting,

payment of tradesmen and suppliers and invoicing.

As business activity increased so did the prob-

lems. It became more and more difficult for Freda to

give the personalised service to her clients. There

were too many for her to visit with sufficient fre-

quency to ensure client satisfaction.

Brian had similar difficulties in supervising the

tradesmen working at so many sites. The days when

he knew all those working at the various projects

had long gone. The workforce was now drawn from

a variety of sources, some less reliable than others.

It was becoming obvious to Brian that materials

were being misappropriated. The records did not agree

in some cases and May was getting very worried.

The quality of workmanship had declined in too

many cases and Freda was angry. She accused Brian

of a lack of interest in the business. They both

started finding fault with the work of the office

staff. Tina Patch started to use this state of affairs to

undermine May Kemp. Tina saw herself in the role

May occupied. In particular, she used client com-

plaints to reinforce the pressure on May.

Eventually the situation came to a head and there

was a tremendous row with everyone blaming the

others. As the row was in full swing the accountant,

Alison Lyle, arrived. At first she was taken by sur-

prise, but quickly recovered. Having calmed

everyone down she asked each of them to list the

problems and suggest the causes. Alison said that

they had descended into a ‘blame culture’ and had

taken very little action to remedy the problems

because they had failed to recognise the causes.

Alison went on to criticise the lack of develop-

ment by Freda and Brian. The business was

organised and staffed in much the same form as it

was in the initial stages. They had not upgraded

their IT or taken advantage of current develop-

ments. She was very critical of Freda attempting to

cover every new project. With the present volume of

activity this was impractical and it was little wonder

that they were running into trouble.

659

Photo: Serge Kozak/Alamy Images

Alison then suggested that Freda should recruit

an experienced interior designer to share the load.

Freda was not happy with this and felt that another

person would not share her artistic sense. The

accountant retorted that she would need to have

that aspect as part of the specification along with

considerable experience in the field. She suggested

using an executive search organisation to locate

suitable candidates.

Similarly she pointed out that Brian was attempt-

ing the impossible and that there really needed to

be a team of, say, two working with him in order to

keep control of the practical activities.

Both Freda and Brian were apprehensive about

the additional costs although it was felt by the

accountant that any added costs would be offset by

the additional clients a second interior designer

would bring to the business and the reduction in

costs attributable to complaints, unsatisfactory qual-

ity and rework.

PART 6 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES

YOUR TASKS

(Note: (i) Make clear any assumptions you feel neces-

sary; (ii) if the case is not answered in the context of

the UK please indicate the context chosen.)

(a)

The development of Fabrique Décor is at a cross-

roads. Discuss the organisational and financial

implications of introducing a second interior designer.

(b) By adopting outsourcing as a practical approach

to operating the business, Freda and Brian are

exposed to considerable risk. Discuss those risks

and describe how they may be minimised.

application of information technology could be

updated.

(d) Following the accountant’s criticism of the organi-

sation of Fabrique Décor, identify the problems and

suggest the action needed to improve the situation.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Heller, R. In Search of European Excellence, HarperCollins

Business (1997), p. 4.

2. Bouchikhi H and Kimberly J. R., ‘The Customized

Workplace’, in Chowdhury, S. Management 21C,

Financial Times Prentice Hall (2000), pp. 207–19.

3. Vecchio, R. P., Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts,

Fourth edition, Dryden Press (2000), p. 338

4. See, for example: Luthans, F. Organizational Behaviour,

Fourth edition, McGraw-Hill (1985).

5. See, for example: Miller, D. and Droge, C.

‘Psychological and Traditional Determinants of

Structure’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 December

1986, pp. 539–60.

6. Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. In Search of Excellence,

Harper & Row (1982), p. 321.

7. Child, J. Organization: A Guide to Problems and Practice,

Second edition, Paul Chapman (1988), p. 221.

See, for example: McKinley, W. ‘Decreasing

Organizational Size: To Untangle or Not to Untangle?’,

Academy of Management Review, January 1992, pp. 112–23;

and Shapiro, E. ‘Power, Not Size Counts’, Management

Review, September 1996.

9. Birkinshaw, J. ‘The Structures behind Global

Companies’, in Pickford, J. (ed.), Financial Times

Mastering Management 2.0, Financial Times Prentice

Hall (2001), pp. 75–80.

10. Woodward, J. Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice,

Second edition, Oxford University Press (1980).

11. Dawson, S. and Wedderburn, D. ‘Introduction’ to

Woodward, J. Industrial Organization: Theory and

Practice, Second edition, Oxford University Press

(1980), p. xiii.

12. Woodward, J. Industrial Organization: Theory and

Practice, Second edition, Oxford University Press

(1980), pp. 69, 71.

13. Zwerman, W. L. New Perspectives on Organization Theory,

Greenwood (1970).

14. Marsh, R. M. and Mannari, H. ‘Technology and Size as

Determinants of the Organisational Structure of

Japanese Factories’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26,

1981, pp. 35–56.

15. Collins, P. D. and Hull, F. ‘Technology and Span of

Control: Woodward Revisited’, Journal of Management

Studies, 23(2), March 1986, pp. 143–64.

16. Perrow, C. Organizational Analysis: A Sociological View,

Tavistock Publications (1970).

17. Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. The Management of

Innovation, Tavistock Publications (1966).

18. Litterer, J. A. The Analysis of Organizations, Second edi-

tion, Wiley (1973).

19. Sherman, J. D. and Smith, H. L. ‘The Influence of

Organizational Structure on Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic

Motivation’, Academy of Management Journal, December

1984, p. 883.

20. Reigle, R. F. ‘Measuring Organic and Mechanistic

Cultures’, Engineering Management Journal, vol. 13, no.

4, December 2001, pp. 3–8.

660

Case study 16.2 continued

CHAPTER 16 PATTERNS OF STRUCTURE AND WORK ORGANISATION

661

21. Wilkins, R. ‘The Management Challenge of Hybrid

Organisations’, Administrator, vol. 7, no. 8, September

1987, p. 3.

22. Mullins, L. J. Hospitality Management and Organisational

Behaviour, Fourth edition, Longman (2001).

23. Parris, J. ‘Designing your Organisation’, Management

Services, vol. 23, no. 10, October 1979, p. 14.

24. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. Organization and

Environment, Irwin (1969).

25. Boschken, H. L. ‘Strategy and Structure: Reconceiving

the Relationship’, Journal of Management, 16(1), March

1990, pp. 135–50.

26. Hunt, J. W. Managing People at Work: A Manager’s Guide

to Behaviour in Organisations, Third edition, McGraw-

Hill (1992), p. 170.

27. Child, J. Organization: A Guide to Problems and Practice,

Second edition, Paul Chapman (1988).

28. Dawson, S. ‘Organisational Analysis and the Study of

Policy Formulation and Implementation’, Public

Administration Bulletin, 31, December 1979, pp. 52–68.

29. Mintzberg, H. The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice

Hall (1979).

30. See, for example: Fincham, R. and Rhodes, P. S. The

Individual, Work and Organization, Second edition,

Weidenfeld and Nicolson (1992).

31. Robey, D. Designing Organizations, Irwin (1982), p. 59.

32. Vecchio, R. P., Organizational Behavior: Core Concepts,

Fourth edition, Dryden Press (2000), pp. 11–12.

33. Hickson, D., Hinings, C., McMillan, C. and Schwitter, J.

‘The Culture Free Context of Organisation Structures:

A Tri National Comparison’, Sociology, vol. 8, 1974,

pp. 59–80.

34. Maurice, M., Sorge, A. and Warner, M. ‘Societal

Differences in Organising Manufacturing Units: A

Comparison of France, West Germany and Britain’,

Organisational Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, 1980, pp. 59–86.

35. Schneider, S. C. and Barsoux, J. Managing Across

Cultures, Second edition, Financial Times Prentice Hall

(2003), p. 101.

36. Morgan, G. Imaginization: The Art of Creative

Management, Sage Publications (1993).

37. See, for example: Rose, A. and Sipling, J. ‘Outsourcing –

Panacea or Recipe for Disaster’, Chartered Secretary,

April 1997, pp. 24–5; and Hains, G. ‘BPO: The Next

Generation of Outsourcing’, Institute of Business Ideas

and Solutions’, December 2002, pp. 12–13.

38. For example, see: Caulkin, S. ‘The Great Consultancy

Cop-Out’, Management Today, March 1997, pp. 33–6.

39. Crainer, S., Key Management Ideas: Thinkers that

Changed the Management World, Third edition,

Financial Times Prentice Hall (1998), p. 47

40. Bouchikhi, H. and Kimberly, J. R., ‘The Customized

Workplace’, in Chowdhury, S., Management 21C,

Financial Times Prentice Hall (2000), pp. 207–19.

41.

Pitman, Sir Brian ‘Flexibility is the Key to

Competitiveness’, Professional Manager, March 2000, p. 6.

42. Atkinson, J. ‘Manpower Strategies for Flexible

Organisations’, Personnel Management, vol. 16, no. 8,

August 1984, pp. 28–31.

43. ‘Commission Proposal Supports Tempory Agency

Work’, Social Agenda, European Commission

Employment and Social Affairs, Issue No. 2, July 2002.

44. See, for example: Kinsman, F. ‘The Virtual Office and

the Flexible Organisation’, Administrator, April 1994,

pp. 31–2.

45. Treby, A. ‘Does Working From Home Work?’, The

British Journal of Administrative Management, May/June

1997, pp. 11–13.

46. Philpott, S., ‘Making the Right Connections?’, The

British Journal of Administrative Management,

July/August 1999, pp. 8–9.

47.

Manochehri, G. and Pinkerton, T. ‘Managing

Telecommuters: Opportunities and Challenges’, American

Business Review, vol. 21, no. 1, January 2003, pp. 9–16.

48. Lucas, E., ‘Keep it Formal for Maximum Flexibility’,

Professional Manager, March 2000, pp. 10–12.

49. Handy, C. B. The Age of Unreason, Business Books

(1989).

50. Mullins, L. J. ‘Delegation and Management’, British

Journal of Administrative Management, vol. 31, no. 7,

October 1981, pp. 218–24.

Use the Financial Times to enhance your understanding of the context and practice of management and

organisational behaviour. Refer to article 17 in the BUSINESS PRESS section at the end of the book for

relevant reports on the issues explored in this chapter.

The imperatives of technology and organization,

not the images of ideology, are what determine

the shape of economic society.

John Kenneth Galbraith

The New Industrial State, Houghton Mifflin (1967)

Far from replacing the human element in

business, the growth of information technology

places an even higher premium upon human

skills.

(Sir) John Harvey-Jones

All Together Now, Heinemann (1994)

TECHNOLOGY AND

ORGANISATIONS

David Preece

Technology is pervasive within contemporary

organisations. It is brought into organisations

by people, is put to work by people and is

discarded by people. This means that the ways

technology is used and the purposes for which

it is used are primarily a result of the decisions

taken by members of the organisation and the

contexts within which those decisions were

taken. It is therefore essential that managers

have an understanding of the nature of

technological change and the organisational

and human resource dimensions and

circumstances of use

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this chapter you should be able to:

 explain the variety of perspectives which are used to

theorise the nature of technology;

 understand the reasons why much technology is inher-

ently flexible, making it appropriate for a wide range of

uses in organisations;

 examine the nature and significance of the technology

adoption and introduction phases;

 recognise the importance and influence of organisa-

tional contexts with respect to the adoption and

implementation of technology;

 explore the technology decision-making process

through a consideration of the objectives and back-

grounds of the parties involved;

 review and examine the work of Castells relating to

networks, organisations and society.

Photo: Doug Martin/Science Photo Library

Technology is found in its various forms in small and large businesses, the service

sector, state institutions, manufacturing companies, educational establishments, multi-

national organisations and the local corner shop. But what is technology? It is

traditional to begin a book or chapter on technology and organisations by addressing

this seemingly simple question with a long and detailed answer, and there is good

reason for this. First of all, there are a variety of definitions, and none of them is uni-

versally accepted. Second, the way in which technology is defined or conceptualised by

a particular writer provides a significant clue as to the theoretical perspective which is

informing his or her understanding of what technology actually means or consists of.

Third, definitions can make a difference, in the sense that what one actually does or

advises/asks other people to do in relation to some technology in part flows from how

one perceives that technology and its capabilities. A particularly helpful model for cap-

turing the varying ways in which technology has been conceptualised has been derived

by Orlikowski;

she distinguishes between the scope (what is defined as comprising

technology) and the role of technology (how the interaction between technology and

the organisation is defined).

Rather than trawl through a number of definitions, the approach adopted here is to

categorise the variety of conceptions into some of the key ‘schools’ or perspectives on

technology in an organisational context. (It is important to note, however, that there is

often a degree of overlap among the ‘schools’.) The main approaches are:

1technological determinism;

2 socio-technical systems approaches;

3 Radical/Marxist perspectives;

4 political/processual approaches;

5 the socio-economic shaping of technology (SST);

6 the social construction of technology (SCT);

7 Actor–Network Analysis (ANA);

8 technology as text and metaphor (TTM).

In the opening paragraphs of their book MacKenzie and Wajcman observe:

Technology is a vitally important aspect of the human condition. Technologies feed, clothe, and

provide shelter for us; they transport, entertain, and heal us; they provide the bases of wealth

and of leisure; they also pollute and kill. For good or ill, they are woven inextricably into the fabric

of our lives … [This] technological determinism contains a partial truth. Technology matters. It

matters not just to the material condition of our lives and to our biological and physical environ-

ment … but to the way we live together socially.

They refer to the view that technology alone causes certain things to happen or to be

as they are as ‘hard determinism’, and go on to note that this can never provide an

adequate or full explanation; this would require reference to and incorporation within

the theory/model of many other factors as well, such as political, social and economic.

But, ‘the failure of hard technological determinism does not rule out a “soft” determin-

ism, and to say that technology’s social effects are complex and contingent is not to

say that it has no social effects’.

In the Organisation Studies domain, the early writing

on the technology–organisation relationship in the 1950s also saw technology as a sig-

nificant, and in some cases, determining variable on organisational behaviour.

Typically here, the technology concerned was of a ‘hard-wired’ variety with an obvious

physical presence, such as manufacturing machinery. As the area of study developed,

the conceptualisation of what ‘technology’ was tended to broaden to incorporate, for

example in Woodward’s case, not just the machinery but also the associated knowledge

CHAPTER 17 TECHNOLOGY AND ORGANISATIONS

THEORISING TECHNOLOGY

663

Technological

determinism

and expertise for utilising that machinery.

Woodward has often been ‘accused’ of

(hard) technological determinism (as in her conclusion that ‘there is a particular form

of organisation most appropriate to each technical situation’),

but, as McLoughlin and

Dawson note, she

… also saw the role of ‘technology’ as being mediated to some extent by the interpretative action

of management in realising the need to adapt organisational structures to the requirements of

the production system. Indeed even in these early studies, often accused of a crude technological

determinism, the notion of ‘technology’ being associated with variable ‘organisational out-

comes’ was sometimes recognised … However, the failure to explain such variations in terms

other than problems of organisational adaptation to some form of technological requirements

has meant that much of this early work has inevitably been labelled as ‘technological determin-

ist’ and thereby [became] a critical reference point for nearly all subsequent organisational

theory and research on the topic.

While Woodward, then, can be argued to have adopted a ‘softer’ form of technological

determinism, Blauner

in the US in the early 1960s took up a harder version when he

argued that the type of technology used in an organisation’s manufacturing process

determined the level of job satisfaction (he used the word ‘alienation’, somewhat inap-

propriately) experienced by people working with and on the technology.

Perhaps one of the most concerted attempts to preserve the facticity or ‘hardness’ of

technology, while at the same time explicitly recognising that it is politically and

socially created, chosen and deployed in organisations, is the work of Thomas in the

US.

His research is strongly anchored in longitudinal case studies of the use of technol-

ogy in a range of organisations, and he argues for the study of organisational

technology via what he terms a ‘power-process’ perspective. He draws upon both the

technological determinist and social choice (see below) perspectives, and makes two key

assumptions: (i) the physical world constrains the range of alternative ways in which

people can organise the production of social goods, and (ii) the social worlds which

people create influence the way they understand and act on the social world. Thus,

technology and organisation are engaged in a continual process of mutual structuring:

The core argument of the book can be stated rather simply: to explain what new technology does

to organizations … we must also explain what people are trying to do to organizations and by

extension, to themselves by means of new technology.

Thomas’s work thus has some affinity with both the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ technological

determinist positions, while also having much in common with some of the theorisa-

tions of technology which we look at below, in particular the socio-economic shaping

of technology, the social construction of technology, and processual approaches. But

what perhaps most distinguishes his approach is the emphasis that he gives through-

out the book to the political shaping and deployment of technology, illustrated by the

following extracts:

If no one social group … can lay claim to the ‘truest’ or the most ‘real’ understanding of the phys-

ical world, then we are forced to conceive of the relationship between technology and

organization as mediated by the exercise of power, that is, by a system of authority and domina-

tion that asserts the primacy of one understanding of the physical world, one prescription for

social organization, over others

… Particular attention must be paid to the relative capacity of

different organizational groups to influence the definition of organizational objectives and the

technical means through which they are to be achieved … Technology can appear to be determi-

nant when its objective features become indistinguishable from the objectives of those who

occupy positions of dominance.

The systems approach to the theorising and analysis of organisations has already been

discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Socio-technical approaches are located within this mode

of analysis, and have a particular concern to find the ‘best fit’ in any given job/work

664

PART 6 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURES

Socio-technical

systems

approaches