PAPA 501
Assignment 1
Classical management theory prescribes a "mechanistic" design for organizations. Classical theorists believed that for organizations to achieve optimal efficiency and effectiveness, they must structure themselves hierarchically with predetermined patterns of authority. These hierarchical structures, or machines as it were, would be characterized by "top-down" control with adherence and obedience to rules, clearly delineated divisions of labor, and precisely defined jobs with routinized tasks. Classical theorists gave relatively little attention to the "human" aspects of organizations. Their chief aim was to make humans fit the requirements of a mechanical organization rather than have the organization meet the needs of its human parts.
Taylor’s scientific management built on classical theory by using detailed observation and analysis of the most routine and mundane work. He standardized tasks and operations so as to achieve optimal performance. This scientific management of the workplace, while undoubtedly increasing productivity in many cases, is often viewed as one of the chief factors leading to worker alienation and dehumanization. Indeed, viewing human workers as interchangeable parts and automatons may not be best in the long run.
There are, however, conditions where tenets of classical theory and scientific management may be appropriate. For example, organizations may employ mechanistic approaches when production operations are repetitive and straightforward in nature, and when precision is critical. Organizations may also choose to be machine-like when accountability and safety issues are paramount. It should be noted, however, that the human parts of these organizational machines must be willing and compliant participants, accepting their role as part of that machine.
Mechanistic approaches would not be appropriate in organizations where frequent adaptation to change is involved. Also, organizations that rely heavily on lateral communication, team approaches, and shared decision making would not be readily amenable to the mechanistic structure. Interdepartmental coordination and communication tend to suffer in the confines of a hierarchical structure.
Above all, management must realize, that whatever the environment, employing mechanistic approaches can have a dehumanizing effect on workers that in many cases may undermine the organizational goals.
The metaphor of the machine is still applicable in many aspects of local government. There is definitely a clearly defined organizational hierarchy that begins with the mayor, council, and city manager and cascades all the way down to clerical workers, public works employees and maintenance personnel. Each department also has a head and its own hierarchical structure with a clear division of labor. Of course, some departments and positions are more mechanistic than others. Water and street department workers are paid to perform predetermined and routine tasks of street and pipe repair. Department heads and other mid-level managers are responsible for tactically organizing these operations. The elected officials and administrators are responsible for long range planning, decision making and implementation of policy.
Overall, the machine metaphor has a significant impact on the design and management of the city for which I work. Top-down control is still largely viewed as the most efficient and effective means of running a local government and ensuring that services are provided in a timely and economical manner.