Organisational Structures

And Vocational Training Provision

Paper presented at the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme,
First Annual Conference - University of Leicester, November 2000
by
Brian Eyres (E-mail: brian.eyres@cibasc.com)
BA(Hons) Open, PGCE(FAHE) MMU, MSc (Dist) Leicester
Ciba Specialty Chemicals plc

Background

Tom Burns and Graham Stalker in their book The Management of Innovation
(1961) (3rd Edition, 1994, Oxford University Press) developed and examined the
concepts of Mechanistic and Organic characteristics using them to frame their
analyses of organisational structures.
Mechanistic characteristics were defined as being found where there are
 hierarchical environments with central control functions
 predominantly vertical communication channels,
 high formalization and task/job definitions
 and, to an extent, initiative mitigated by a rigidly defined command structure
and positional terms of reference.
Organic characteristics were those present
 where organisational structure was more of a network,
 where communications were more likely to be lateral
 where task definitions are more fluid and flexible - related to competences and
skills held rather than being a function of position in the organisation.
 and where influencing of decisions were most likely to be made on the basis of
expertise rather than an individual (or group’s) position in a command structure
Considerably more points of contrast may be indicated such as
 Authoritarian versus Democratic
 Referential versus Empowered
 Individual versus Group
 Focused versus holistic approach
 Internal rules as ‘law’ versus internal rules as guidance
 Sometimes even a preference for qualifications gained within the organisation as
opposed to those originating elsewhere despite the latter usually have a much
wider currency and transferability.

1
 Characteristic Mechanistic Organic
Task definition Rigid Flexible
Communication Vertical Lateral
Formalization High Low
Influence Authority Expertise
Control Centralized Diverse

The identification of these characteristics was intended to help to explain

departmental functional behaviour in organisations and, indeed, this work has been
developed, and used by other researchers over the years.
However one area in which it would appear to have implications but which hitherto
seems not to have been considered is where it impacts on training provision. In
particular I’d like to talk briefly today about the usefulness of the model in
examining the efficacy of vocational training in larger multi-departmental
organisations.

A useful way of approaching the model might be to view

 mechanistic features as those which encourage job/task-centred approaches to

training, and
 organic features as those which focus more on the development of the
individual.

In my research, I examined the internal department structure of a multi-national

chemical company and looked at the strength of the relationship found there
between both mechanistic and organic departments and training provision.
A questionnaire was sent to managers (i.e. the commissioners of training) at the
company’s Manchester site to elicit answers which would allow the classification of
departments as either organic or mechanistic. It went on to try to establish links
between;

 the department structures,

 forms of training found there, and
 whether they were successful and/or appropriate in meeting perceived needs
of;

 individual trainees,
 department managers, and
 the company as a whole.

The survey was extended to sites at Paisley in Scotland, then Grenzach, in southern
Germany where similarities and differences were identified and discussed.

2
Though the sample was relatively small (120) an 85% response mitigated this to
some extent and, after all, the cohort approached represented all those who were
active in commissioning training within the company.

Study Findings

1. Given that such environments do quantifiably exist, their characteristics may

require the trainer to acknowledge the influence they may have on the
organisation and delivery of effective, appropriate training. For example:
 The trainer will be more effective if the training forms are congruent with
the prevailing departmental type as trainees (and even more so where they
are ‘qualified’ persons are undergoing ‘refresher’ training) will, wittingly or
otherwise, identify with the training more and feel it to be more appropriate
and relevant for them as its form and delivery accords with prevailing
departmental philosophies and expected methods of working. (This certainly
seemed to be the case with the departmental managers in the study.)
2. If this is so it may well fundamentally question the rationale and suitability of a
system of training being provided - and in some cases might help to explain its
lack of efficacy. For example;
 The progress and success of Vocational Qualifications in manufacturing
settings which are predominantly mechanistic in orientation will be seriously
compromised where the actual structure of the qualification is conceived and
presented in organic terms.
3. It was found that departments, with few notable exceptions, tended not to be
extremes of type but have a preponderance of one set of characteristics or the
other.
4. What could be said from the study with a degree of certainty however was that
mechanistic features tended to increase with proximity to the manufacturing
process and decrease the further an area was situated from it.
 In the example in the study then, this meant Production, Packaging and
Warehousing areas were strongly mechanistic whilst IT and HRM/D were
strongly organic.
 Areas such as R&D proved to be more problematic and displayed both sets
of characteristics at different levels of their internal organisation (i.e.
Product development interacted mostly with Production and was highly
mechanistic; on the other hand other research-driven areas did not and were
organic in structure.)
5. A example to reinforce the findings is that seen when desirable employment
characteristics listed by the ‘organic’ HRM function were utilised to judge the
suitability of prospective process operators for the ‘mechanistic’ Production
departments. After the procedure was modified to include Production Team
Leaders on the interview panels a greater proportion of new starters completed
initial training successfully and were taken on permanently. One of the factors at
work in this instance would seem to be the need for the presence of a more task-
focused approach, somebody who’d worked in production and so was used to
the hierarchical power structures prevalent there.
6. As indicated by the previous point, real-world, in-service solutions are
constantly having to be found and this research merely works towards de-
3
 mystifying the rationale behind such events. Managers could indeed (albeit
unwittingly) generally categorise their departmental needs adequately and
commission appropriate standards and complexions of training. In other words,
training types were usually allocated appropriately.

7. Nevertheless there was found to be substantial inappropriate provision which,

seen through the framework of this model, is a waste of finite and valuable time,
money and resources.

8. To be cost effective, planning of vocational training provision needs to consider

the organisational framework in which the training itself is taking place. In the
context of the model sketched in this paper that may mean an evaluation of
where it is likely to situate along the organic-mechanistic continuum.

Further issues and questions for debate

1. Might organic training in mechanistic areas project an ethos of self-

determination, decision-making potential and independent thought incompatible
with the nature of departmental operations?

2. Might mechanistic training in organic areas seem didactic/behaviourist given

that a learner’s usual environment has accustomed them to proximity to
decision-making and independent action?

3. If these scenarios do exist, wouldn’t not taking their influence into account be
detrimental to the construction and development of optimal workplace training
environments in general not merely in specific cases?

4. More positively, might organic courses presented to workers from mechanistic

areas enhance operations by liberating them from a mundane environment -
perhaps re-energising and motivating them?

5. How far can this go before it the tensions it may generate begin to start
questioning (and ultimately compromising) the fundamental complexion of the
department?

6. It’s absolutely crucial that where training is organised and facilitated for areas
which have differing make-ups in mechanistic/organic terms, this is taken into
account. What can often happen is that a training function/provider (most
naturally at home in, and the product of, an organic environment) may tend to
value and promote courses or training packages which reflect that particular
orientational base.

4
Implications with reference to conference theme of “Raising attainment in
authentic settings.”

1. There is a need to fully recognise, amongst employers, that vocational

qualifications are not learning or training in themselves but merely the
frameworks by which those processes might be appropriately structured.

2. Existing learning/training, especially in manufacturing, largely reflects

departmental orientation in terms of mechanistic/ organic characteristics.

3. In the light of points 1 and 2, the efficacy of vocational qualifications in

particular contexts (not just manufacturing, or even industrial) might be
optimised by taking into account the structure of the organisational environment.
i.e.;

 Vocational qualifications in mechanistic areas are probably more likely to be

more effective if they are more prescriptive in their delivery as well as in
their expectations.
 Similarly, those in organic areas might profit from a less prescriptive
approach, which aims to be somewhat more consultative, inclusive and
discursive.

4. To be optimally effective and to compliment particularly industrial learning and

training strategies, vocational training must be flexible enough to be able to
 emphasis qualities and attributes of learner-based (organic) approaches as the
situation requires
 emphasis qualities and attributes of function-based (mechanistic) approaches
as the situation requires
 do these things without the danger that the inherent tension this produces
will pull the structure apart
 still retain, and advocate as core, many elements of both approaches
whichever way emphasis is shifted in particular cases.

Further research

The speaker is currently researching into vocational qualification initiatives in

diverse Mechanistic and Organic environments to try to quantify

1. disruptive effects where there is a mismatch of training with the predominant

organisation type, and

2. the benefits of being able to tailor training provision to harmonise with intrinsic
organisational structures.

5
Some background reading in the area

 Aldag, Ramon J. and Ronald G Storey, “Environmental Uncertainty :

Comments on Objective and Perceptual Indices,” pp.203-5 in Arthur G
Bedeian, A. A. Armenakis, W. H. Holley Jr., and H. S. Field Jnr., (eds.)
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, (1975),
Auburn, Alabama : Academy of Management.
 Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M., (1961), The Management of Innovation,
Tavistock Publications
 Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M., (1994), The Management of Innovation, (3rd
Edition), Oxford University Press
 CLMS, (1995), ‘Determinants of Training Activity within the Organisation’,
Leicester.
 Crozier, Michel, (1965), The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, Oxford University
Press
 Emery, Fred E. and Eric L. Trist, (1965), “The Causal Texture of
Organizational Environments”, pp 21-32 in Human Relations, February, 1965
 Handy, C. B., (1981) Understanding Organisations, 2nd edn.,
Harmondsworth : Penguin
 Hendry, C., (1991), ‘Corporate Strategy and Training’ in Stevens, J. and
Mackay, R., (eds.), Training and Competitiveness, London : Kogan Paul
 Koontz, H. & Weihrich, H., (1990), ‘Basic Departmentation’, in Essentials of
Management, Chapter 8, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill
 Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W., (1967), Organization and Environment :
Managing Differentiation and Integration, Boston : Div. of Research, Harvard
Business School.
 Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organizations, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ : Prentice Hall
 Pettigrew, A. M., (1979), ‘On Studying Organizational Cultures’,
Administration Science Quarterly, Volume 24, pp 570-581.
 Pettigrew, A. M., (1985), ‘Culture and politics in strategic decision-making and
change’, in Pennings, J. M., (ed.), Organizational Strategy and Change, San
Francisco : Jossey Bass
 Pettigrew, A. M., Jones, G. R. and Reason, P. W. (eds.) (1982), Training and
Development Roles in their Organisational Settings, MSC.
 Taylor, F. W., (1911), The Principles of Scientific Management [Reprinted in
Scientific Management, New York : Harper, 1947]
 Tosi, Henry L., Ramon J. Aldag and Ronald G. Storey, “On the Measurement
of the Environment : An assessment of the Lawrence and Lorsch
Environmental Subscale,” pp.27-36 in Administrative Science Quartlerly,
March 1973
 Woodward, Joan, (1962), Industrial Organization : Theory and Practice,
London

6
 Characteristics of Mechanistic and Organic Systems
[collated from Burns and Stalker, The Management of Innovation (1961)]
Mechanistic
a)Specialised differentiation of
functional tasks into which
problems or tasks are broken
down.
b)Abstract nature of tasks pursued
with techniques and purposes
mostly distinct from those of
the concern as a whole.
Improvement of means pursued
rather than accomplishment of
company ends.
c)Reconciliation, at each hierarchic
level, of distinct performances
by individuals or groups by
their superiors who are in turn
responsible for seeing each task
is relevant in its own special
part of main task.
d)Precise definition of rights,
obligations and technical
methods attached to functional
roles.
e)Translation of rights, obligations,
methods into responsibilities of
functional positions.
f) Hierarchic structure of control,
authority and communication.
g)Reinforcement of the hierarchic
structure by location of
knowledge of actualities
exclusively at top of hierarchy
where final reconciliation of
distinct tasks and assessment of
relevance made.
7
Organic
a) Contributive nature of specialist
knowledge and experience to the
common tasks of the concern.
b) The ‘realistic’ nature of an individual
task which is seen as set by the
total situation of the concern.
c) Adjustment and continual re-
definition of individual tasks
through interaction with others.
d) Shedding of ‘responsibility’ as a
limited field of rights, obligations
and methods.
e) The spread of commitment to the
concern beyond any technical
definition.
f) Network structure. Sanctions on
conduct more from a presumed
community of interest than
contract relationship with a non-
personal corporation represented
by an immediate superior.
g) Omniscience not imputed to the
concern head. Technical,
commercial knowledge and tasks
may be sited anywhere in
network. Location becomes ad
hoc centre of authority and
communication on the subject.
h)Tendency for interaction between h) Lateral communication through the
members of the concern to be organisation between people of
vertical, i.e., Between superior different rank. Consulting rather
and subordinate. than command.
i) Operations/working behaviour i) Communication being information
governed by and advice rather than
instruction/decisions from instructions and decisions.
superiors.
j) Insistence on loyalty to the concern j) Commitment to the task and
and obedience to superiors as a ‘technological ethos’ of progress
condition of acceptance. and expansion at least as highly
valued than loyalty or obedience.
k)More importance/prestige attached k) Importance/prestige given to
to internal over general affiliations /expertise valid in
(cosmopolitan) knowledge, industrial, technical, commercial
experience and skill. milieux external to firm.