Two influential philosophers of the 17th century who paved the way for scientific thinking were Descartes and Newton. Descartes’ philosophical beliefs were built upon by Newton’s work, which dealt with the prevailing mechanical philosophy of his day (Janiak, 2008). Since the 17th century, our worldview evolved from Aristotle’s natural philosophy to one that could be explained in the same way we understand the workings of a machine (Janiak, 2008). By the end of the 20th century, mechanistic thinking and scientific thinking merged together particularly, in western civilization and influenced how we began to structure organizations.
Let’s put the mechanistic thinking into practice. Think of a pocket watch. What are all of the things you know about it? Some observations might be that the parts all mesh together; when one part breaks down, the entire watch stops; it can wear out; it is predictable until it fails. Now compare the watch to a living tree. The tree has roots; if one part of the tree dies, another can regenerate itself; even if the entire tree dies it transforms itself into soil. A tree does not die when every part is destroyed, but it transforms itself into another form.
explanation of the following:
How did the mechanistic organization mindset become so
ingrained in the business world?
What in the evolution of management theory and practice caused the need for change?
The strengths and limitations of the machine metaphor
One alternative structure that can replace the mechanistic organization and how it can give an organization an advantage
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (6th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chapter 3, “Getting Organized” (pp. 45-70)
Chapter 4, “Structure and Restructuring” (pp. 71-92)
Chapter 5, “Organizing Groups and Team” (pp. 93-114)
Langenberg, S. & Wesseling, H. (2016). Making sense of Weick’s organising: A philosophical exploration Links to an external site.. Philosophy of Management, 15, 221-224. Retrieved from
