The paper “ Analysing Organisations in Different Perspectives Based on Metaphors of Organisational Behaviour” is an impressive example of the case study on human resources. Organisational behaviour can be scrutinised from different perspectives and likened to various aspects in our day to day life. This is a good stride toward understanding how and why the organisation behaves the way it does; why it operates or is operated the way it is. Some years back, many organisations were much resistant to change and were not willing to embrace, for instance, the technological new dawn with ease (Shafritz and Ott 2001).
This is because of, among other things, the fact that the organisations had not been cultured with allowances made for possible change. Thus the culture of the organisation was to run in a more or less tight established mode of operation (Shafritz and Ott 2001). These included those days when people held the idea of a bureaucratic organisation as dear; when the line of command would only drop from up. Nevertheless, organisations have had to go a different way through adaptation in different ways to survive in the vast paradigm shift that occurs in the day to day operation of the organisation, become fit to survive in the environment through adaptation hence garner the ability to meet its various needs.
On this perspective, therefore, the organisation can be said to exhibit characteristics of an organism which has body members and which each member of the body functions to ensure harmonious functionality of the entire system. Moreover, the main assumption is that each member of the whole body functions only to fulfil a commonly known purpose; just like each part of the body of living organism functions to ensure that life is sustained in the organism. Culture, on the other hand, is an organisational perspective which must stand to ensure that transformation in the organisation suits the environmental changes but at the same time is well and technically designed to accomplish the objectives for which it exists.
This is the point at which the organisation starts being seen as a machine. Therefore, when looking at an organisation on the perspective of a machine, we look at the purpose of the organisation, that it has a formal design, its task allocation structure, that it has a system of formal rules and procedures and specialisation is paramount besides there being the coordination of the entire operation.
Axley, S., R. 1984. Managerial and Organizational Communication in Terms of the Conduit Metaphor, by Academy of Management.
Cornelissen, P. 2002. 'The merit and mischief of metaphor:' British Journal of Management, 13: 277–279.
Gioia, M. D. Schultz and Corley, K. 2000. 'Organizational identity, image and adaptive instability', Academy of Management Review, 25: 63–81.
Human Relations, December 1, 2008; 61(12): 1713 - 1742.
Martins, J., 1992. “Three perspectives of Cultures in organizations” Oxford University Press, USA
Morgan, G., 1980. “Paradigms, Metaphors, and Puzzle Solving in Organization Theory”, Johnson Graduate School, Cornell University.
Paulson, C., J. 2002. 'On the "organizational identity" metaphor', British Journal of Management, 13: 259–268.
Smircich, L., 2006. “Concepts of culture and organizational analysis” Sage Publishing
Terry, J., and Hogg 2001. “Social identity processes in organizational context,” Psychology Press, New York.
Wang, A., Chou, L., Wang, .P. Huang and Cheng, S., 2008. “Shared work values and team member effectiveness”
Whetten. A. and Albert, S. 1985. 'Organizational identity'. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Victoria Police –Corporate Governance 2008/2009. Accessible at: http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=50
Morgan, G., 1998. “Images of Organization” Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Organizational Culture 2005 http://www.soi.org/reading/change/culture.shtml
Schein, E., 1993. “Organizational Culture and Leadership. Thousand Oaks; Sage Publications.
Shafritz, J., and Ott, S., (eds.) 2001. “Classics of Organization Theory” Harcourt College Publishers.