Metaphor of Organization as Organism

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Strengths of the Organism Metaphor of Organizations
Weaknesses of the Organism Metaphor of Organizations
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

Before the metaphor of organization as organism was introduced, organizations were viewed as machines. This metaphor of organizations as machines laid the foundation upon which organizations sought for more effective ways of responding to their external environment.

The lack of flexibility that many bureaucratic organizations experienced forced organizational theorists to look for a different perception of organizations. As a result, theorists sought for answers in to biology, and more specifically ecology, to understand how organizations work.

Hence the metaphor of organizations as organism was born. Ecology explains how organisms relate with their environments. When applied to organizations, “the social ecology of an organization implies there is a living system of relations between people, their small groups, and their communities,” (Morgan, 1998, p. 34). This paper discusses the metaphor of organization as an organism as proposed by Gareth Morgan.

Discussion

The notion of population ecology and its application to organizations borrows a leaf from the Darwinian assertion “survival for the fittest” whereby only the strongest of a particular species survives. The idea that organizations need to survive in the highly competitive business world in the wider external setting forced some organization theorists to look at organizations as open systems.

Responding to the external environment requires a “stimulus response” (Buono & Jamieson, 2010, p. 120) that is inherent in the organism metaphor. The open system ideology not only views the organization as a component of a bigger system, but also as constitute of integrated subsystems within the organization (Morgan, 1998). These systems mutually depend on each other and ideally assist each other to uphold several fundamental processes.

In order for any organism to survive, it needs to understand its needs and vulnerabilities. This is also the case for an organization. Indeed, the growth and sustainability of any organization will not only enable it to survive in the highly competitive setting, but it will also enable it to be flexible enough to respond swiftly to the variations that take place as a result of variations in the environment.

Flexibility and variations in an organization occur through redesign. Alvesson (2002) explains the redesigning as varying the fundamental make-up and procedure of an organization.

The survival of an organization also requires effective leaders who are participative and democratic, contrary to the authoritarian or autocratic styles of leaders that are the norm for mechanistic organizations (Golembiewski, 2000.) Participative and democratic leaders support association and active participation of the members.

Therefore, the survival of an organization is also dependent on the growth and development of its members. The growth of organizational members can be illustrated through the development of attractive jobs, and independence, dependability and acknowledgment. This will enable the organization to be productive and hence stay ahead of its competitors.

Strengths of the Organism Metaphor of Organizations

The earlier metaphors of organization (as machines) did not attach any importance to the role the environment plays in the survival of an organization (Massarik, 1995). The theories therefore viewed organizations as closed systems that could be constructed as clearly defined structures of components. On the other hand, the ideas proposed by the organism metaphor put emphasis on the environment in which organizations function and as a result organizations need to take into consideration their environments in order to survive.

The organism metaphor puts emphasis on the organizational survival as the major objective of any organization. This is contrary to the focus of the earlier theories on the attainment of specific operational objectives (Jackson, 2000). Survival is a procedure which leads to the attainment of objectives and targets.

This view adds flexibility and gives warning of the danger of treating goals and objectives as ends in themselves. This is a universal mistake of many organizations. The organism metaphor also focuses on the utilization and attainment of resources as well as the fulfilment of diverse needs which support a wider and suppler strategy (Magalhaes, 2004). The attainment of congruence with the environment is a major managerial chore.

Weaknesses of the Organism Metaphor of Organizations

Organisms are species that exist in a natural world with material characteristics that influence the survival and wellbeing of its members. This natural world can be seen, felt and touched. Nature is objective and real in every way. Nevertheless, this image is not realistic when applied to an organization because organizations and their environments are mainly socially construed phenomena (Taylor & Every, 2000).

Organizations are the results of visions, ideas, norms and beliefs, and therefore their form and make-up is more delicate and cautious than the material make-up of an organism. Even though there are numerous material elements of an organization, organizations basically depend for survival – in the form of persistent organizational activity – on the imaginative deeds of human beings. It is therefore deceptive to argue that organizations are required to adjust to their external settings, as the earlier theorists argue.

Conclusion

The organization as organism metaphor views organizations as entities that depend on the interdependence of its members for its survival. To a great extent, this metaphor is helpful in analyzing the functioning and survival of organizations particularly in reference to its external environment. Although the metaphor has much strength, it also has a number of limitations which have been discussed in this paper.

Reference List

Alvesson, M., 2002. Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.

Buono, A. & Jamieson, D., 2010. Consultation for organizational change. New York: IAP.

Golembiewski, R., 2000. Handbook of organizational consultation: revised and expanded. New York: CRC Press.

Jackson, M., 2000. Systems approaches to management. London: Springer.

Magalhaes, R., 2004. Organizational knowledge and technology: an action-oriented perspective on organization and information systems. London: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Massarik, F., 1995. Advances in organization development: volume 3. New York: CRC Press.

Morgan, G., 1998. Images of organization. London: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Taylor, J. & Every, E., 2000. The emergent organization: communication as its site and surface. London: Sage.

Click Here To Order Now!