Organization Theory 1

Running head: ORGANIZATIONS AND ORGANIZATION THEORY

Organizations as Living Entities

Monique Lloyd

Emporia State University

 Organization Theory 2

Organizations are living entities. This is what I came away with after

reading Hatch’s text (Hatch, 1997) as well as numerous articles on organization

theory. An organization can be simply defined as a group of individuals working

together toward common goals. We are all part of organizations from the time we

are born into a family to the time we are buried. Organization theory gives us

tools to examine the concepts and relationships of the systems composing the

organization and this examination can help us reach our goals in more efficient

ways.

Continuing the analogy of an organization as a living thing, one could say

that an organization is born, grows, matures, and eventually dies. It can be

merged into a family. It has a brain (managers), guts (risk taking), and heart

(social responsibility). It has muscles (power and movement), nerves (responds to

external forces), has a skeleton (systems), and social, cultural, and political

facets. It uses technology, has life blood (raw goods), waste, eyes (vision),

hands (a work force), a voice and an ego (marketing). It changes and adapts to

its environment (Kirk, 2004) and has social networks (Cross, Borgatti, and Parker,

2002). It is self-reflective, periodically taking assessments of itself and

making adjustments as needed. If it is truly fortunate, it has spirit, a true leader

(Moran, 1995).

An organization can work together with others (vertical and horizontal

integration) or compete (Hatch, p.78). It can learn to speak another language

 Organization Theory 3

while keeping its own accent (Heyman, 2001). It can educate itself (Vedder,

Vanecek, Gunynes, & Cappel, 1999), develop core values (Patkus & Rapple,

2000), and find ways to communicate with others such as with communities of

creation (Sawhney & Prandelli, 2000), communities of practice (Wenger &

Synder, 2000), and strategic communities (Storck & Hill, 2000).

An organization can become burned out because of the “incessant

demand for and adpation” (Victor & Stephens, 1994) and even end up having a

breakdown (Holt, 2004). Sometimes the rush to a cure makes things worse

(Christensen & Raynor). An organization can develop communication problems

(Schein, 1996) or serious memory problems because of employee turnover (Cross

& Baird).

The analogy is admittedly limiting and fits well with the postmodernism

view only if one looks at organizations as living entities as drawn by Picasso in

which parts are constantly being cut out and rearranged differently, adding

“contradiction, ambiguity, and paradox” as well as makingmanagers artists

creating “the organization in their hearts and minds as a theory”

(Hatch, p.55).

I like the analogy of organizations as living entities because both are

complex, composed of interconnected systems, are self-defined but shaped by

their culture and environment. They have both form and function, are always

changing, and influence and are influenced by others. Most of all organizations

have similarities yet each is unique and attempting to find its niche
 in the world

Organization Theory 4

Christensen, C.M. & Raynor, M.E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care

about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 81, (9), 66-74

Cross, R. & Baird, L. (2000). Technology is not improving performance by

building organizational memory. Sloan Management Review 41 (3), 41-54.

Hatch, M.J. (1997). Organization theory: Modern symbolic and postmodern

perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Heyman, M.K. (2001). Building successful relationships with IT professionals.

Information Outlook, 5 (4), 34-42.

Holt, G.E. (2004). Economics: simple basics: little things that make us look stupid.

The Bottom Line: Managing Library Finances, 17 (4), 147-149.

Kirk, T.G. (2004). The role of management theory in day-to-day management practices

of a college library director. Library Administration & Management, 17 (4), 350-

38.

Moran, B.B.(1995) Learning about Leadership: What Works in Modern Organizations in

 Allen, B.L. and Weece, T. L. (eds), Critical Issues in Library Management:

Papers from the Thirty-Fifth Allerton Institute, University of Illinois, GLIS,

Urbana-Champaign, 1995, pp. 3-18.

Patkus, R.& Rapple, B.A. (2000). Changing the culture of libraries- the role of core

values. Library Administration & Management, 14 (4), 197-203.

Sawhney, M. & Emanuela P. (2000), Communities of creation: managing distributed

innovation in turbulent markets, California Management Review, 24-54

Shein, E. (1996). Three cultures of management: the key to organizational learning.

Organization Theory 5

Sloan Management Review, 37 (3), 9-20.

Storck, J. & Hill, P. (2000). Knowledge diffusion through strategic communities. MIT

Sloan Management Review, 41 (2), 63-74.

Vedder, R.G., Vanecek, M.T., Guynes, C.S. & Cappel, J.J. (1999). CEO and CIO

perspectives on competitive intelligence. Communications of the ACM, 42 (8),

108-116.

Victor, B. & Stephens, C. (1994)The dark side of the new organizational forms: an

editorial essay. Organization Science, 5 (4), 479-482.

Wenger, E. & Synder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: the organizational frontier.\

Harvard Business Review, 1, 139-145.