This metaphor is a move from mechanic approach to more biological one. Therefore, organizations are considered as complex open systems which must adapt to grow and survive, otherwise, they die. Such organizations operate better when the needs are met.

Key Points are as follows:

1) Organizations are living systems, depending on their wider environment to meet their needs.

2) This metaphor is a move away from the Mechanistic view to a more Biological view.

3) Organizations are open systems and must adapt to grow and survive. If they do not adapt they will weaken and may die.

4) In certain environments, certain organizations tend to appear and thrive. e. g. Bureaucratic organizations function best in orderly, stable environments.

5) Organizations operate more efficiently when needs are met.

Limitations of the Organism Metaphor affect this theory quite strong. Although advantages and disadvantages still are able to compete in this case.

Strengths:

Develop understanding between organizations and their environments.

The management of organizations can often be improved through systematic attention to the “needs”

The focus on “needs” encourages to see organizations as interacting processes that have to be balanced internally as well as externally

In organizing there is always a range of options.

The metaphor stresses the virtue of organic forms of organization in the process of innovation

Weaknesses:

Product of changing times that has undermined the efficiency of bureaucratic organizations.

The metaphor leads to view organizations and their environments in a way that is far too concrete

It is misleading to suggest that organizations need to “adapt” to their environment or that environments “select" the organizations that are to survive

Interdependence where every element of the system works for all the other elements

In organizations, self-interest is a major conflict.

The danger of the metaphor becoming an ideology

Applying organism theory to today's conditions

Like organisms, businesses are born, grow and die.

Organisms are more receptive to environmental feedback than machines. Businesses also operate within a delicate ecology and other dependancies.

Entrepreneurial organizations grow more by evolution than rational planning. Perhaps businesses have both machine-like and organism-like characteristics which are controversial and opponent to each other, though.organisms look to their environments while being a machine encourages internal tinkering.

That means that this theory as a clearly self-outstanding structure doesn't almost exist, although it is now widely applied around the world. Every big corporation with highly developed branches and departments immediately is put under the definition of organization as an organism, however, management system still must contribute efforts to enabling structure and connection that bothers to work other not less applicable theories.

Socio-technical systems

It is not just job enlargement and enrichment which is important, but also transforming technology into a meaningful tool in the hands of the users. The socio-technical systems approach is based on the premise that every organization consists of the people, the technical system and the environment. Pasmore, 1988 People (the social system) use tools, techniques and knowledge (the technical system) to produce goods or services valued by consumers or users. Therefore, an equilibrium among the social system, the technical system and the environment is necessary to make the organization more effective.

There are four key variables which, it was suggested, were the major determinants of output:

people and social groups

technology

organizational structure

external environment

Sociotechnical Systems (STS) theory was initially developed by members of the Tavistock Institute in London, with the primary objective to improve the overall quality of working life. A sociotechnical system has two inter-related sub-systems (Mumford 2006):

the technology sub-system includes not only equipment, machines, tools and technology but also the work organization;

the social sub-system includes individuals and teams, and needs for coordination, control and boundary management.

Applying socio-technical approach to today's conditions

"The next significant step in improving workplace safety lies in looking beyond traditional approaches and exploring the potential of sociotechnical systems to address the fundamental challenges associated with new technologies, emerging industries and the ever-changing workforce (Dekker, Hancock, and Wilkin 2013; Holden et al. 2013; Carayon et al. 2014). This evolution will focus attention on latent or emerging risks as opposed to reacting to injuries after-the-fact. A number of relevant, yet disparate, theories and approaches can be drawn upon to understand worker safety within sociotechnical systems. Here, the focus of the theories and approaches is shifted to safety, though it is recognized that safety is an emergent property of the system and, as such, not separable from other system attributes and goals". https: //www.ncbi. nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4647652/

In the 50 years since sociotechnical systems theory was introduced it has evolved in many different ways. It has had a vital role to play in the never ending struggle to integrate the social and technical components of every working system. If it is to remain relevant and be developed further it now has to contribute to a world in which flexible, multifunctional information and communication technologies are being regularly implemented into existing operational work systems.

Contingency theories

The situational approach (Selznick, 1949; Burns and Stalker, 1961; Woodward, 1965; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) is based on the belief that there cannot be universal guidelines which are suitable for all situations.organizational systems are inter-related with the environment. The contingency approach (Hellriegel and Slocum, 1973) suggests that different environments require different organizational relationships for optimum effectiveness, taking into consideration various social, legal, political, technical and economic factors.

The essence of the contingency approach is that the manner in which an organization should be managed depends upon the wide range of variables which may apply to that organization at any point in time. "Contingency theory argues that organizational design, management and control structures should be tailored to fit the needs of individual organizations. Factors in organizational design will be dependent upon ownership, the environment, size, technology and the particular nature of the work". David Campbell, Tom Craig "Organizations and the business environment" [page 21]

Focus on determining the best management approach for any given situation.

Two types of environments: Stable (little to no change) and Innovative (great changes)

Two types of management systems: Mechanistic (similar to bureaucratic classical theory) and organic (non bureaucratic, similar to behavioral management)

In a stable environment, mechanistic works best, In an innovative environment organic works best

Burns and Stalker

Tom Burns and Graham Stalker in their 1961 book, "The Management of Innovation" studied about 20 Scottish and British electronics companies operating in increasingly competitive and innovative technological markets. Their findings demonstrated that organizations operating in stable environments are very different from those which have to face a changing and dynamic environment.

Burns and Stalker classified the firms into 2 categories on the basis of their managerial structures and practices: mechanistic and organic.

The authors found that mechanistic organizations, also called bureaucracies, are suited for relatively stable environmental conditions. The organic organizations are more likely to exist under unstable environmental conditions.

Burns and Stalker emphasized that each system is appropriate under its own specific conditions. Neither system was superior to the other under all situations.

Lawrence and Lorsch

Another significant study to demonstrate the relationships between environmental characteristics and effective organizational structures was conducted by Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch (1967). They studied ten US firms in three separate industries (plastics, food, containers) that confronted varying degrees of uncertainty, complexity and change.

The researchers found that successful firms in each industry had a different degree of differentiation. The firms operating in uncertain, complex, rapidly changing environments had more highly differentiated internal structures: sales, production and R&D departments. Such organizations require the greater need for suitable mechanisms for integrating and resolving conflicts between ranges of segments.

Successful firms in more homogeneous and stable environment were more formalized and hierarchical in their forms. Authors concluded that successful firms must have internal structures as complex as environments in which they operate

Differentiation

Differentiation refers to the degree to which management practices, attitudes and behavior vary (or differ) from manager to manager within the organization. In particular, the differences refer to:

the varying orientation to certain organizational goals (e. g. cost reduction is felt more keenly by accountants and production managers than sales people and engineers);

the varying time perspectives and time orientations (e. g. research and development (R&D) people tend to work on much longer time scales than sales and administrative people);

the varying degrees of interpersonal orientation (e. g. sales people tend to be more relationship oriented than production people);

the varying formality of functional department structures across the organization (e. g. production departments tend to have `taller' and more complex structures when compared to the relative informality of R&D departments).

Integration

"Integration refers to the degree to which management attitudes and practices are common among managers in an organization and the extent of collaboration that exists between managers. This is the opposite of differentiation". David Campbell, Tom Craig "Organizations and the business environment" [page 23]

Applying contingency theory to today's conditions

Contingency theory has many applications in the organizational world:

Can be used to assess the effectiveness of an individual in a particular role and look at the reasons for one's effectiveness or ineffectiveness.

Can be used to predict whether a person who has worked well in one position in an organization will be equally effective in another position having different situational variables when compared to the existing position based on the contingencies that make one's style effective.

Can help in implementing changes in the roles and responsibilities that management might need to make to bring effectiveness to the role of the person leading the same.

As now society has more understanding of leadership and its challenges in the XXI century organizational context, contingency model might not be the best leadership model to use in most situations, but still can be a powerful tool to analyze a particular situation to determine whether to focus on tasks or relationships. This model sometimes can give an inaccurate picture of your leadership style as it relies heavily on the LPC scale, which has been questioned for its face validity and workability.

Further this model does not fully explain how organizations can use the results of this theory in situational engineering and hence we recommend taking a cautious approach and using your own judgment to analyze the situation from all angles.

Conclusion