- Published: August 23, 2022
- Updated: August 23, 2022
- University / College: University of Houston
- Level: Bachelor's Degree
- Language: English
- Downloads: 29
Reading Log Ideas Morgan (2006) articulates a strong number of ideas. One of the central thorough-puts is the argument that with the increasing technological mediation of our lives, organizations are increasingly explicated and structured through the use of mechanical terminology and modes of understanding. One of the primary challenges for organizations has then become implementing processes that transcend such methods of mechanization as a means of establishing a culture of fresh ideas and innovation. The text also considers that such modes of mechanization are not unnatural in the sense that they constitute human technological advancement, but that this advancement is operating in a paradigm that is oppositional to the structure of the human brain.
There are a number of insights that can be gleamed from the discussion. One of the primary considerations is Morgan’s (2006) belief that mechanization is necessarily a negative for human progress; such a debate dates back as early as Rousseau’s ‘ noble savage,’ with the reality remaining anywhere but clear. In either regards, it seems that at the least one can embrace the argument in that for many individuals there is oftentimes a longing for such ‘ naturalness’ and that an organization only implementing mechanized inputs can only expect to produce mechanized outputs, effectively alienating this human longing. One of the prominent such considerations then is establishing objective means of avoiding such mechanization. It is clear that, to an extent, for Morgan (2006) this involves developing organizations that are more in accordance with natural human physiology. His main understanding of the brain as a form of organizational design seems contingent on the central insight that traditional organizational mechanization is rooted in a cause and effect chain of events, whereas an organization linked to the human brain would be composed elements that act with slight independence while also containing a semblance of the whole.
There are a variety of applications for such an approach. One considers Burnes’ (2009) examination of Oticon. For Burnes (2009) the critical success factor for Oticon’s turnaround was first the establishment of an overarching vision that contained strong values as a means of promoting a new organizational culture. The organization then established a learning organization wherein internal innovation and change became the fabric of the work process. One considers that these critical success factors relate directly to Morgan’s (2006) notions of the organization as a brain in that they established an interlocking element (organizational values and vision), with an infrastructure of dynamic learning. Still, there remains room for the organization to further implement Morgan’s (2006) notion of the brain as hologram in organizational design. A means this structural approach could be implemented would be through the establishment of organizational departments that are entirely independent of each other in terms of the knowledge of specific production focus, but are interlocked in terms of overarching organizational values and ultimate product design. Such an approach would encourage a more natural mode of creation and innovation through limiting the scope of bureaucracy, while at the same time gaining the benefits of large-scale organizational scope. It seems that to a degree such an approach has been implemented at Apple, Inc. where development teams are directed towards a singular organizational goal, yet in an entirely compartmentalized fashion that is more akin to the human brain than traditional mechanization.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change. 5th edn. London: Pearson.
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of an organization. Sage: USA