Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker's mechanistic and organic systems theory

Burns and Stalker

Tom Burns, G.M. Stalker, and the Theory of Mechanistic and Organic Systems: Background and Developments

The twentieth century saw a huge growth in the field of management as an academic as well as a professional and practical discipline. Many theories on the subject were developed during the past century, and especially in the latter half. The reason for this was relatively clear -- industrialization had been growing for the preceding century, already drastically reshaping the way the world worked and forever altering the daily lives of the citizens of developed and developing nations. Henry Ford's innovation of the assembly line early in the century further revolutionized the manufacturing process for many goods, which in turn had an effect on the overall organization of companies and other complex entities.

The two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the rise of Communism also all occurred within the first fifty years of the twentieth century; each of these events and/or trends was revolutionary in its own way, and the world was essentially in a state of organizational flux for much of this period. As the dust began to settle in the twentieth century, the delicate balance that existed in the Cold War and the space race had further influences on the concept of organizations, be they business firms, social clubs, or governments. Methods for understanding and influencing organizational behavior continued to be influenced by these ongoing events, leading to new organizational theories, some of which drastically re-imagined the preconceived notions of what it took to move organizations forward and achieve success in various (and always varying) situations.

One of the most prominent theories -- and theorists -- to emerge during this period is Tom Burns' (and G.M. Stalker's) theory of mechanistic and organic systems. By classifying organizations in their current state as either mechanistic or organic, Burns and Stalker's theory allows for the consideration of external and internal forces that are already affecting organizational behavior and possibilities, and suggests behaviors and actions that the organization can incorporate into its operations. Burns and Stalker's theory provides a very detailed view of organizations and recommended courses of action based on external and internal circumstances. Before an examination of these details is undertaken, however, a brief overview of the life of Tom burns and the formation of his partnership with G.M. Stalker, especially given their historical context, would be immensely beneficial.

Tom Burns: A Brief Biography

Tom Burns was born just a few short years before the outbreak of the First World War, in London on January 16, 1913. Though this conflict did not have a direct effect on Burns during his years in attendance at the Hague St. Elementary School, later conflicts would, and it is probable that his childhood memories of World War I played some part in his understanding of organizations (Eldridge 2001). In most known respects, Tom Burns' childhood was fairly typical of a middle- or upper-middle class family in London; he had educated parents and was himself devoted to study for a large portion of his youth -- indeed, for his entire life -- which continued largely uninterrupted for the first decades of his existence.

After the Hague St. Elementary School, Burns attended the Parmiter's Foundation School and then Bristol University (where he studied English Literature) before accepting a position as a lecturer in English at Helsinki University in Finland (Eldridge 2001). This position, however was interrupted by the outbreak of World War II in 1939, and Burns spent the next six years -- less the period from 1941 to 1943 that he spent as a German prisoner of war -- working in the Friends' Ambulance Unit which was staffed almost exclusively by conscientious objectors to the war and the idea of killing (Bechhofer & McCrone 2001). His experiences during the Second World War, both with the ambulance unit and as a POW, must necessarily have influenced his observations and conclusions regarding organizations and their responses to external pressures and internal forces.

The breadth of Burns' experience as well as his intellectual curiosity is credited with his late but powerful impact on the development of sociology, which he founded and chaired the department of in 1965 at Edinburgh University, where he began his teaching career in 1949 as a research lecturer (Eldridge 2001). His fascination with organizations was readily observable in both his academic pursuits and his actions in his life, where he was deeply engaged in the structure of the university at which he worked, and the parts that each individual in the organization played (Bechhofer & McCrone 2001). His experience of so many different organizational structures -- the formalized schools he attended, the less formalized ambulance service, the extremities fo a POW camp, and ultimately a department he directly steered -- greatly influenced his academic theories on the subject.

The Theory of Organic and Mechanistic Organizations

The work and theories of Max Weber, one of sociology's founding fathers, was a major influence on certain aspects of Burns and Stalker's theory. The bureaucracies that Weber described through his own sociological observations were seen as creators of stabilization both with themselves and in larger society. That is, organizations were, in Weber's view, aided in their stability by their departmentalization, hierarchies, and even to some degree their complexity (Sine et al. 2006). Burns, as a budding sociologist himself, was far more than familiar with Weber's theories and analysis, and did not even necessarily disagree with this analysis. He did, however, see a problem with bureaucracies in the world beyond Weber.

The twentieth century, especially after the close of World War II, was a time of great innovation and progress in many fields, both governmental and industry related. Weber's bureaucracies, which would in many ways become the mechanistic organizations described by Burns and Stalker, had significant trouble adapting to these changes in many instances. The stability that Weber had seen as a benefit -- and which was indeed a benefit in certain times -- in bureaucratic organizations was a detriment in times of rapid change, when different organizational structures and behaviors are called for (Burns & Stalker 1961). Stability prevented progress and adaptation, and Burns and Stalker set out to see what organizational structures and behaviors would prove the most adaptive, and therefore the most advantageous in the time period in which they were -- and we still are -- living.

The organic system of organization and management that Burns and Stalker saw as more adaptive, and therefore more responsive to change and more capable of meaningful innovation, consisted of a "flat structure" of communication and decision making, where consultation rather than dictation was the way in which actions and behaviors were chosen (Sine et al. 2006). Each individual's and department's activities and decisions were something that they were ultimately responsible for; the organic organization requires a lack of strict top-down policy formations and mandates, which is replaced with a common and collective interest and inquiry into the decisions of the organization as a whole (Burns & Stalker 1961). In this way, the organization is able to develop as needed or warranted by the plethora of external and internal circumstances that affect it daily.

There is often a negative connotation associated with Burns and Stalker's assessment of mechanistic organizations, and there is some truth in this qualitative perspective. This does not mean that all aspects of mechanistic organizations are too be seen as primarily detrimental or less-than-satisfactory, however; stability is a good thing, and in certain times and situations a very necessary thing. Stability and innovation, however, are not often mutual partners in an organization's growth and progression, and it was this issue that Burns and Stalker tackled. Their theory is improved upon only by a better understanding, provided by a longer view from the end (rather than the middle) of a century of great innovation and change, of the larger organizational influences and cycles that form the pattern of global culture and society today, which shows that not all mechanistic tendencies are unwanted (Sine et al. 2006).

Conclusion

No theories exist in a vacuum, and management/organizational theories are certainly no different. The theories that develop in the business world, and in the academic world concerning business, cannot help but be a direct response to the observations of the time. Tom Burns and G.M. Stalker's theory of mechanistic and organic organizations, as describe din their book The Management of Innovation, is no different from any other theory in this regard, These two collaborators, through careful observation and analysis of real-world circumstances and organizations, developed a revolutionary way of thinking about organizations.