Introduction
The study of organizational behavior is both interesting and challenging. According to Dr.Hawa Sigh (2010), “organizational behavior addresses broadly interaction of people within all types of organizations such as business, government, university and service organizations”.(6) Ray French et al (2010) claim that organizations should be considered as “open systems that transform human and material resource “inputs”, received from their environment, into product “outputs” in the form of finished goods or services; the outputs are then offered to environment for consumption” (16). Furthermore, organizations can be viewed with respect to them consisting of separate individuals and teams and as a whole in their interaction with environment. So, micro-organizational behavioral studies focus on the way employees act alone or within teams, paying special attention to mentorship and guidance, whereas macro organizational behavior emphasizes organization a whole and its interactions with environment, including organizations’ market behavior. Origins of macro organizational behaviour can be found in such fields as economics, sociology, political science and anthropology. Macro organizational behavior puts emphasis on researching into various organizational structures and their impact on organization’s performance. In this essay we would like to concentrate on organic organizations, viewing them from macro organizational behavioural point.
Organic organizations: theoretical aspect
The term “organic” lets us suggest that organizations, like living objects, are able to adjust their structure, roles and processes to changing outer circumstances. In their book “The management of innovation” (1962), Burns and Stalker opposed organic organizations to mechanistic ones. Mechanistic management systems are appropriate for stable conditions, whereas organic organizations are specifically tailored to ever changing environmental conditions. Organic organizations help managers to be responsive, rather than reactive, to environmental changes. The most important characteristics of organic organizations are the adjustment and continual reconsideration of individual tasks, flexible jobs, strong interrelations and even interdependence between different organizational units, decentralization, multiple-channeled communication, respect to employees’ initiative, minimum formal rules and procedures to be envisaged and employees’ participation in decision-making and problem-solving processes. According to analysis by F.Lunenburg (2012), it is worth considering organic organizations, using well-known organizational variables, such as complexity (specialization), centralization (hierarchy of authority), formalization (standardization), adaptivness (flexibility), production, efficiency and job satisfaction. (2-3). Using such approach, the author claims that organic (professional) organization is the one, which is characterized by high complexity, low centralization, low formalization, low stratification, high adaptiveness, low production, low efficiency and high job satisfaction. Except being useful in terms of ever changing environmental conditions, organic organizations are also the ones, most appropriate for companies, seeking innovations.
It is worth mentioning that, according to Lawrence J. Gitman and Carl D. McDaniel (2008), few organizations are purely organic or purely mechanistic. (189) Nonetheless, most organizations have either more organic or more mechanistic structure. Managers are to choose this direction, basing their choice on considering such factors, as firm’s strategy, its activities, size and stability of external environment. According to Robert Lussier (2008), “organization’s external environment includes the factors outside its boundaries” (53). To consider external environment, it is worth using PESTEL analysis strategy to evaluate political, economic, social, technological environmental and legal factors, which can exert influence on organization’s performance. Most managers tend to mix both styles, creating a unique organizational structure, which is the best one to fit the characteristics of their organizations and external environment.
Google as an example of organic organizations
One of the purest examples of organic organizational structures is Google. Google, Inc. is an American multinational corporation, which concentrates on providing Internet-related products. Due to highly competitive environment and peculiarities of high technologies industry, Google is doomed to pay particular attention to developing and designing innovations. Google’s managers adhere to the “70-20-10” rule, according to which each employee is expected to spend 70 percent of his/her time on current assignments, 20 percent – on related projects, which they choose themselves and 10 percent on whatever other projects they are interested in. Google’s managers encourage people to work directly which each other, omitting formal channels. So, when somebody has some valuable idea, he/she does not have to go through complicated bureaucratic nets to introduce it to senior managers, but can do it directly. Moreover, decentralization and the amount of autonomy granted to managers let employees see their ideas becoming start-ups soon after their introduction.
Organic type of Google’s organization is also confirmed by the fact that the company promotes employees’ self-management and self-accountability. Lots of people enjoy discussing unique working conditions in Google (e.g, free cafes, fitness clubs and game rooms for employees). Nonetheless, particularly having a chance to distribute their time themselves and interact with colleagues informally provides employees with sense of both belonging and self-dependence. Self-dependence of employees, their opinions’ real weigh in decision-making process, decentralization, absence of tough hierarchy and overwhelming bureaucracy helps Google to ensure atmosphere, which is crucial for creating innovative projects. In Google’s case it is important to remember that any bureaucratic obstacles or failure to provide employees with the chance to express their ideas can result in huge losses, especially in case employees decide to leave Google for some other company. To my mind, whatever company, which is interested in innovations, should be able to establish such a managerial system which will ensure employees’ chance to become their own leaders, evaluate their own jobs and make relevant consequences. As Google ‘s policy lies in attracting top talents to develop innovation, all of them get involved into open discussions, evaluations and encouraged to express their opinions and share the feedback. Google’s being an organic organization helps it implement its mission: “to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful”. (Google’s official website, 2013 ) As Google is the most popular search engine in the world, we can hardly doubt successfulness of strategies its managers use.
Conclusion
Macro organizational behavioural studies focus on considering organization as a whole. The issue of organic versus mechanistic organizations is crucial for modern macro organizational behavioural studies. Organic organizations are those, which can be characterized by decentralization, high level of employee’s involvement into decision-making, flexibility, employees’ initiative, emphasis on direct communication between employees etc. Organic organizational design is considered to be most appropriate for organizations, which are subjected to tough influence, exerted by external factors. Example of Google’s organic organization’s characteristics led us to the conclusion that organic design is crucial in terms of producing innovations. Particularly attention to employees’ ideas, short way from an idea to start-up, autonomy and self management of employees are things, which help Google stay world’s top company. Such a success seems to be hardly reachable in terms of standardized mechanistic design.
References
Burns T., Stalker G. (1962). The management of innovation. Chicago: Quadrangle Books
French, R., Rayner Ch., Rees, G., Rumbles S., Schermehorn J., Hunt, J. and R.Osborn (2010).Organizational behavior. West Sussex: John Wile&Sons
Gitman, L., McDaniel, C.(2008). The future of business: the essentials. Mason: Cengage Learning
Google, Inc. (2013). Official Website. Retrieved 1 March 2013 from www.google.com/about
Lunenburg, F. (2012). Mechanistic-organic organizations – an axiomatic theory : authority based on bureaucracy. International Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity, Vol.14, 1-7
Lussier, R. (2008). Management fundamentals: concepts application skill development. Mason: Cengage Learning
Sigh, H. (2010). Organizational behavior. Delhi: V.K. (India) Enterprises
