In chapter 20 of the text, Griffin explains Weick's theory regarding organizations as information systems. Weick uses many metaphors to get his point across, but much of it is lost despite those metaphors. Weick generally focuses on the common process of organizing, but his metaphors cloud and confuse his points. For example, he dismisses the use of the mechanistic metaphor that "employees are cogs in a corporate machine which is geared to produce widgets" (1), and uses the description of the early church instead. However, his use of this description does not make more sense than the first because he doesn't take the time to explain the relationship between the two. The reader is left wondering to what Weick is referring. The passage makes it difficult to reduce entropy.

According to the humanistic standard of theory, a good humanistic theory generates change, and Weick's "ready, aim, fire" has missed the target on this one. Weick's idealistic "ready, fire, aim" is in blatant contradiction with one of Aesop's fables that we all grew up with. The fable I speak of is the one with the goat that is walking along and because he is so happy, he decides to leap into the air. However, in his moment of jubilation he had failed to notice the dried well that was in front of him and he fell right in. Despite his tries to free himself, he was unable to get out of the well. More sadly, no one heard the goat's cries. Yet Weick's plan of "ready, fire, aim" is appropriate in certain circumstances. Much like the saying "A moving car is easier to turn than one that is sitting still," Weick contends that if you have any plan at all, it is better than no plan. Both the saying and Weick hold true the fact that if you are moving, the scenery will change and you will be able to pick up hints and ideas along the way. However, if you are stuck, and simply stop moving, the scenery will not change and no additional information will be acquired. This small truth to the idea of "ready, fire, aim" does not justify it, though. This ideal simply will not become the management model of the new millennium.

Weick's use of the description of the early church to describe organizations is more logical than the comparison with social Darwinism. Weick states that the "social-cultural environment of the organization should be considered as a jungle where survival is the name of the game, an ultimate goal even more important than accomplishing the stated aims of the organization." However, he makes the mistake of using the March of Dimes as his case in point. This organization originally existed to fund research to find a cure for polio. When that goal was met in the late 1950s, the March of Dimes had a dilemma; it no longer had a disease to fight and without that cause, there was no reason for it to exist. The March of Dimes did not close its doors, but switched its focus to birth defects instead of polio. This does not meet Weick's own criteria because survival was not placed before the accomplishment of the organization's stated aim. They accomplished that which they had set out to accomplish. This case can not be used to predict the actions of other organizations. It functions only as a way to clarify the values of the organization.

Weick's theory of organizations as information systems can only be evaluated on a humanistic basis. It primarily functions as a feel-good assumption on the behavior of organizations and individuals in organizations. It leaves the reader with more questions than answers due to the complexity and it does not have aesthetic appeal. Lastly, the radical suggestions the Weick makes-- act, then think; leap, then look; ready, fire, aim-- are unnerving and give the reader a sense of chaos in Weick's thinking. I would have to say that, on a humanistic basis, the theory presented by Weick falls short of what it needs to be in order to be called a good theory. It barely meets half of the standards, and only after applying extreme cases for some of the standards.