Introduction
In management theory, numerous attempts have been made to understand the behavior of the organization. In these efforts, the primary objective has been to solve the practical problems being encountered in organizational contexts on a day-to-day basis. For example, during the early twentieth century, Frederick Winslow Taylor developed that is today referred to as scientific management or Taylorism. Based on this theory, the best way of increasingly productivity is by using the most efficient way of doing work, hiring the right person for the job, training the worker, monitoring the worker, and shifting responsibility for workers to managers. Other theories of management that propose different ways of solving organizational problems include bureaucratic theory, Marxism, human relations theory, and total quality management.
In management theory, there is one that stands out: Gareth Morgan’s eight metaphors of organizations. In this theory, Morgan (2001) discusses eight metaphors that act as lens through which one may view an organization. The eight metaphors include machine, organism, brain, culture, political system, psychic prison, change and transformation, and instrument of domination (Morgan, 2001). The choice of metaphor greatly influences how one perceives organizational problems and the solutions sought.
Morgan’s (2001) theory stands out primarily because it provides an analysis of the different perspectives that people use to understand the behavior of organizations. Moreover, each metaphor creates insight in some areas of organizational practice while obscuring some aspects organizational management. This makes the metaphors look like eight different languages, such that a manager who understands more of Morgan’s metaphors is likely to be better at understanding how his organization operates. This means that such a manager will be better at problem-solving. The aim of this paper is to analyze an organization based on an in-depth understanding of management theory and Morgan’s metaphors. The organization to be analyzed in this paper is Apple Inc.
The machine metaphor
In the machine view of the organization, the objective is to solve practical problems by running an organization as if it was a machine. On the basis of this perspective, the organization must have unity of command and span of control. Moreover, division of work must occur, just in the same way that different components of a machine serve different roles in enabling the machine function effectively. When an organization is viewed as a machine, one has to look at how authority and responsibility is apportioned and how different people are allowed to take different initiatives.
In his discussion of the bureaucratic theory, Max Weber outlines various principles of classical management that emphasize the manner in which bureaucratic organizations rearrange administration processes into routines. This is precisely the same way in which the machine turns the production process into a routine. On this basis, one is able to draw a parallel between the organization and a machine. The idea of the organization as a machine is also exemplified in the scientific management theory that was developed by Frederick Taylor. In scientific management, managers are called upon to analyze tasks scientifically and come up with the most efficient way of performing tasks. They are also called upon to assign tasks to employees based on their motivation and capability. Based on this theory, worker performance should also be monitored to ensure that instructions are being followed and that work is being done in an efficient manner. The scientific management theory also establishes a distinction between the work of managers and those of workers. According to Taylor, this distinction is necessary for workers to perform all the tasks assigned to them efficiently.
The management principles being adopted at Apple Inc exhibit numerous features of the machine view of the organization. For instance, the company operates as a bureaucracy (Fiegerman, 2012). There is a formal hierarchical structure outlined through an elaborate description of each job placement. Apple’s Chief Executive Officer is Tim Cook. Down the hierarchy, the company has appointed managers who perform specific tasks outlined in the organizational management structure. One of these managers is Peter Oppenheimer, who is the chief financial officer. Other job placement positions at this level include chief operating officer, design, legal, hardware, Retail, Operations, product marketing, software engineering, and global communication. Each of the managers who occupy these positions controls the actions of all employees working below them within the hierarchy. For example, both the head of communication in Japan and the head of communication in Latin America report to the manager in charge of global communication. At the same time, the manager in charge of global communication reports to the CEO.
The management and organizational structure being used at Apple Inc. has also borrowed heavily from the legacy of scientific management theory. In all the hierarchical positions defined at the company, the existing policy requires those who possess the knowhow to be given the job (Fiegerman, 2012). This practice is in line with the principle of assigning tasks based on ability and motivation. For instance, Peter Oppenheimer, the chief financial officer, possesses the skills, experience, and motivation to occupy this position given his wealth of experience at Apple spanning 18 years. This analysis shows that to some extent, the management structure of Apple Inc. fits into the machine metaphor. This is mainly because of the way in which the company adheres to the principles of bureaucracy and scientific management.
The metaphor of organization as organism
Organizations may also be analyzed using the metaphor of the organism, meaning that they are understood as entities that grow. They are viewed as living systems that inhabit an environment on which they always depend for the satisfaction of various needs. In this view, those who work in the organization may be likened to molecules. Similarly, groups and teams may be likened to cells. As organisms, organizations are expected to adapt to changes in both the internal and external environment in the struggle for satisfaction of needs and survival.
Employees will always have complex needs. For them to work efficiently, the organization that they work for must endeavor to satisfy these needs. Failure to satisfy them may lead to lack of motivation. Similarities, the organization must be open to the environment. The tasks of employees must be fitted to the environment that they are an integral part of. Organizations that embrace this view are able to adapt to changes in the external environment. This approach has led to the emergence of project-oriented organizations, adhocracies, and matrix organizations. An adhocracy is an organization that flexibly employs an informal organizational structure that is devoid of any bureaucratic processes.
In recent years, Apple supply chain has been linked to poor working conditions (Fiegerman, 2012). Most of these complaints come from the company’s suppliers in China (Litzinger, 2013). One of them is Foxconn, a Chinese factory outsourced by Apple to supply some of the components used to manufacture the company’s products (Litzinger, 2013). At Foxconn, the numerous labor, environmental, and health problems being raised portray Apple in negative light (Chan, Pun, Selden, 2013). They have created the impression that the company is in a ruthless quest for profitability at the expense of the health needs and overall wellbeing of workers. This situation has compelled Apple to respond to these damaging claims. The claims are damaging given Foxconn’s view that its culture of illegal overtime and intense pressures for its workers have been necessitated by Apple’s dominance in price-setting mechanisms, which have automatically led to the emergence of a high-pressure production regime at the factory (Chan, Pun, Selden, 2013). Failure by Apple to address these challenges may tarnish its reputation across the world. This is because organizations are like organisms, those who run them must be mindful of the environments in which they operate for them to grow.
The brain metaphorÂ
A number of management theories that support the metaphor of the organization as a brain have been developed. One of them is the decision-making approach, which treats organization as information, communication, and decision-making systems. Another theory is cybernetics, which focuses on the study of systems in terms of capacity to sense, scan, and monitor the most significant aspects of their immediate environment. In cybernetics, systems must possess the capability to relate all the information gathered to the operating norms that dictate systemic behavior. The ability to detect deviations from these systemic norms is critical. Once the significance of the deviations has been ascertained, the systems should initiate corrective actions.
Apple was founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. After a few years, a power struggle in the board of directors of the company led to the Jobs’ ouster as the CEO of the company in 1985. Jobs had been instrumental in the success of the company until his exit. A few years after his departure, Apple started encountering stiff competition from other computer companies. In 1997, the company brought him back as CEO. Since then, the company has returned to its glory days of the early 1980s. Many people attribute Apple success to Steve Jobs’ ingenuity, talent, leadership style, and a flair for marketing (Deutschman, 2001). The best way to make sense of these attributes is by using the brain metaphor. Jobs’ success at Apple may be explained using the decision-making approach as well as the cybernetics theory. Both approaches emphasize the need for organizations to develop information-gathering and sense-making systems as a basis for decision-making. The case of Steve Jobs and his success at Apple show that the ability by top management to make sense of and utilize these systems is important for every organization.
The culture metaphor
This metaphor is based on the view of organizations as socially constructed realities (Morgan, 2001). One of the most unique things about Apple is its culture of secrecy. The company is extremely secretive. The objective of this culture is to protect the company’s strategies from its competitors. In many cases, even the company’s employees tend to be unaware of the precise dates of new product announcements. The resulting air of secrecy tends to raise a lot of speculation in the market, which is a good thing in terms of publicity. By developing such a culture, Apple has simply disintegrated the existing social order to establish fragmented beliefs that fit into the occupation structure in which it operates. This has transformed the company into a mini-society with a unique set of norms, beliefs, practices, and norms.
The cultural model of the organization enjoys a lot of support from scholars mainly because it focuses on subjective meaning and symbolic aspects of organization (Alvesson, 2002; Martin, 2002; Morgan, 2001). Each organization adopts a subjective view of the environment in which it operates depending on its objectives, challenges, and circumstances. On its part, Apple Inc. has chosen to be a secretive organization because the company’s managers regard this as one of the best ways of safeguarding its interests and creating an ideal environment for its objectives to be achieved. To safeguard this culture, Apple has established a set of values, basic assumptions, artifacts, ethical rules, and beliefs that are aimed at protecting the company’s position as a global leader in the production of innovative mobile devices, music gadgets, and computers.
The metaphor of organizations as political systems
           A person who chooses to look at Apple as a political system would first and foremost examine the extent to which it is structured in accordance with political principles of power, authority, and superior-subordinate relations. Such a person may also want to look at the political processes being promoted to reconcile people with divergent opinions through negotiation and consultation. It may also be necessary to examine whether Steve Jobs, Apple’s founder, was an autocratic manager. According to Isaacson (2012), Jobs was very tough and impatient with the people working around him. Moreover, in 1985, he was fired as the company’s CEO following a power struggle. People who view organizations as political systems focus on such issues. Evidently, Apple, like contemporary organizations, has had its fair share of political issues to grapple with.
The power plays and interpersonal intrigues that unfold in many organizations may be invisible but very vicious. If not addressed, they may derail organizational progress. To demonstrate what political fights can do to an organization, one should look no further than the case of Steve jobs, who was thrown out of a company that he had helped found for 12 years. It demonstrates that in all human systems, people always tend to have different interests, some of which end up coming into conflict with those of the organization. According to Sharma & Grant (2011), these interests become political if people start forming coalitions as a way of advancing their interests.
The psychic prison metaphor
The psychic prison metaphor is based on the view that organizations are what they are because some people become imprisoned by certain mind maps. The socially constructed realities that people come up with soon taken on a life of their own, thereby rendering their maker a prisoner. In this process, organizations are created. One of the personal attributes that enabled Steve Jobs to steer Apple to success was the ability to focus on one thing(Isaacson, 2012). At times, Jobs would fail to address pressing family problems, simply because he was focusing on his work at the company (Isaacson, 2012). He had become a prisoner of his work place. He was trapped by the pursuit of organizational success. For organizations to be successful, they must be able to go beyond the goals and policies that brought them success to start with.
Metaphor of organization as a system of adaptation, flux, and Change
The world is changing all the time. Thing same is true for organizations. When Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy, it was manufacturing a random array of products, mainly computers and peripherals. When Jobs returned to the company that year, he did away with those products and focused just two categories of products: consumer products and professional products. Each of them was to have two versions: portable and desktop. This way, change had come to Apple. This transformed marked the company’s turnaround towards the path of profitability. Today, it is the world’s most valuable profitable company (Isaacson, 2012). Organizations that fail to respond to the prevailing organizational environment through change end up collapsing.
Metaphor of organization as an instrument of domination
Like everybody, organizations are viewed as individuals before the law. This implies that an assessment of their impact on people should be based on the same standards as those of other humans. In this case, companies and institutions are found to be socially disruptive. Apple is known for its innovative but socially disruptive technology. As Isaacson (2002) puts it, the company leapfrogs the market into embracing an alternative product whenever it finds itself playing catch-up in the hands of competitors. This makes the company seem like it is operating as an instrument of domination.
Conclusion
Cotemporary management theory provides numerous insights into the nature of organization. Frederick Taylor’s scientific management theory and Max Weber bureaucratic theory are two dominant examples of approaches to the study of the organization. Gareth Morgan’s eight metaphors provide an excellent overview of the different perspectives that scholars have adopted in efforts to find out how organizations behave, why they behave in the way they do, and how they solve their problems.
None of the eight metaphors is more important than the other. Each of them enables the manager to view his organization from a whole new perspective. This is a good thing because the manager may start to see things that may have been hidden from view. However, it may also be a bad thing because it may obscure certain crucial dimensions. Therefore, everyone who works in an organization should endeavor to look into as many perspectives as possible in order to understanding why certain things happen in their places of work. The case of Apple Inc. has demonstrated that each of the eight metaphors described by Gareth Morgan helps shed light on different aspects of organizational structure and behavior.
References
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.
Chan, J., Pun, N. Selden, M. (2013). The politics of global production: Apple, Foxconn and China’s new working class. New Technology, Work and Employment, 28(2), 100–115.
Deutschman, A. (2001). The second coming of Steve Jobs. Los Angeles, CA: Random House LLC.
Fiegerman, S. (2012). Actually, Sometimes It Sucks To Work At Apple – Here’s Why. 14 June 2012. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-complaints-employees-have-about-working-at-apple-2012-6?op=1 on March 5, 2014.
Isaacson, W. (2012). The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs. Harvard Business Review, April 2012.
Litzinger, R. (2013). The Labor Question in China: Apple and Beyond. South Atlantic Quarterly, 112(1), 172-178.
Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Morgan, G. (2001). Images of Organization. London: Sage.
Sharma, A. & Grant, D. (2011). Narrative, drama and charismatic leadership: The case of Apple’s Steve Jobs. Leadership, 7(1), 3-26.