Root Metaphors as an Aid to Understanding Organizational Behaviour

Robert Allen 11500024
Root metaphors as an aid to understanding organizational behaviour and their relevance to organizations in a knowledge based economy.
Introduction
The use of root metaphors to provide insight into organizations seems to be seen as a useful if limited way of understanding their complex natures (Morgan, 1997) (Andriesson, 2008), which may have been more suited to the industrial age. The rise of the Knowledge Based Economy (KBE) and post-industrial organizations pose further challenges to the effectiveness of root metaphors when attempting to understand organizations in what is now generally recognised as fast paced (Bart, Victor, and Stephens 1994), sometimes chaotic environments where knowledge and technology are seen as key drivers and understanding the present is as difficult as predicting the future. When faced with such uncertainty it could be argued that root metaphors are of limited use in understanding Knowledge Based Organizations (KBO) that are categorized as ambiguous, flexible, autonomous entities without mechanistic command and control structures (Handy, 1996) (Hesselbein, Goldsmith, & Beckhard 1997).Alternatively, the prevalence and longevity of these metaphors may indicate that they can still contribute to understanding organizational behaviour in a KBE. This paper will explore these positions with reference to Bentley Motors an organization that it can be argued is operating in a KBE.
Discussion
At the heart of the machine metaphor is a set of assumptions and beliefs about the organization it attempts to describe, broadly concerned with quantifiable outputs, efficiency and structure, command and control and a prevalence for seeing people as a source of muscle not brain power (Town, 2011). On the face of it these assumptions would suggest that the machine metaphor has a limited use in a KBE as described by amongst others (Drucker, 1997) and (Champy, 1997) with their emphasis on an inherent flexibility to embrace change

References: Bart,V. & Stephens,C. (1994) "The dark side of new organizational forms." Organization Science. 5, 4, Bart,V Becker, K. and Snow, J. (Winter 1997). American "KAIZEN"- A perspective on American management theories. Journal of Industrial Technology (13) 1, p. 9-12. Burns,T., & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications Champy, J.A Deetz,S. “Disciplinary Power in the Modern Corporation”, pp 21-25 in M.Alveson and H. Willmott (eds) Critical Management Studies. London Sage, 1992,b. Drucker, P.F. (2001). The essential Drucker. New York: Harper Business. Eisenhardt, M, K. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57). Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Gulick,L. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In L. Gulick & L. Urwick,eds., Papers on the science of administration (pp.3-34). New York: Institute of Public Administration. Hammer, M. (1997). The soul of the new organization. In F.Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, & R. Bechhard (Eds.), The organization of the future (pp.25-31). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Handy, C. (1996) Beyond certainty: The changing worlds of organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hatch,M. J. (1997) Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M. & Beckhard, R. (1997). The organization of the future. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Lewin, J.E., & Johnston, W. J. (2000). The impact of downsizing and restructuring on organizational competitiveness. Competitiveness Review, 10 (1), 45-55. Lewin, R., & Regine,B. (2000). The soul at work: Embracing complexity science for business success. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4), 370 – 396 Mayo, G McGregor,D.M. (1957). The human side of enterprise. Management Review Vol. 46, 22-28, 88-92. Mintzberg, H. (1979) The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall. Peters, T., & Waterman, R.H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies. New York, NY: Harper – Collins. Scott, W.G. (1961,April) Organization theory: An overview and an appraisal. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 7-26. Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organization. American Sociological Review, 13, 25-35. Shafritz, J.M., & Ott, J.S. (2001). Classics of organization theory (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX:Harcourt. Smith, A. (1776). Of the division of labour. In An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (chapter 1, pp. 5-15. Printed for W. Strahan and T.Cadell in the Strand, London, 1776. Taylor, F.W. (1916) The principles of scientific management: Bulletin of the Taylor Society. Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Townley, B. 1993. 'Performance Appraisal and the Emergence of Management. ' Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 30, No. 2, March, pp. 221-238. Townley, B. 1994. 'Communicating with Employees. ' In Personnel Management. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice in Britain. Second Edition. Edited by K. Sisson. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 595-633. Trice, H.M., & Beyer, J.M. (1993) The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wiener, N. (1954). Cybernetics in History. In The human use of human beings: Cybernetics and society (pp.15-27). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Weber, M