💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5161.gmi captured on 2021-12-05 at 23:47:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

⬅️ Previous capture (2021-12-03)

➡️ Next capture (2023-01-29)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Organization Theory

An organization, by its most basic definition, is an assembly of people working

together to achieve common objectives through a division of labor. An

organization provides a means of using individual strengths within a group to

achieve more than can be accomplished by the aggregate efforts of group members

working individually. Business organizations are formed to deliver goods or

services to consumers in such a manner that they can realize a profit at the

conclusion of the transaction. Over the years, business analysts, economists,

and academic researchers have pondered several theories that attempt to explain

the dynamics of business organizations, including the ways in which they make

decisions, distribute power and control, resolve conflict, and promote or

resist organizational change. As Jeffrey Pfeffer summarized in New Directions

for Organization Theory, organizational theory studies provide "an

interdisciplinary focus on a) the effect of social organizations on the

behavior and attitudes of individuals within them, b) the effects of individual

characteristics and action on organization,'� c) the performance, success, and

survival of organizations, d) the mutual effects of environments, including

resource and task, political, and cultural environments on organizations and

vice versa, and e) concerns with both the epistemology and methodology that

undergird research on each of these topics."

Of the various organizational theories that have been studied in this realm,

the open-systems theory has emerged as perhaps the most widely known, but

others have their proponents as well. Indeed, some researchers into

organizational theory propound a blending of various theories, arguing that an

enterprise will embrace different organizational strategies in reaction to

changes in its competitive circumstances, structural design, and experiences.

BACKGROUND

Modern organization theory is rooted in concepts developed during the

beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Of

considerable import during that period was the research done by of German

sociologist Max Weber (1864 1920). Weber believed that bureaucracies, staffed

by bureaucrats, represented the ideal organizational form. Weber based his

model bureaucracy on legal and absolute authority, logic, and order. In Weber's

idealized organizational structure, responsibilities for workers are clearly

defined and behavior is tightly controlled by rules, policies, and procedures.

Weber's theories of organizations, like others of the period, reflected an

impersonal attitude toward the people in the organization. Indeed, the work

force, with its personal frailties and imperfections, was regarded as a

potential detriment to the efficiency of any system. Although his theories are

now considered mechanistic and outdated, Weber's views on bureaucracy provided

important insight into the era's conceptions of process efficiency, division of

labor, and authority.

Another important contributor to organization theory in the early 1900s was

Henri Fayol. He is credited with identifying strategic planning, staff

recruitment, employee motivation, and employee guidance (via policies and

procedures) as important management functions in creating and nourishing a

successful organization.

Weber's and Fayol's theories found broad application in the early and

mid-1900s, in part because of the influence of Frederick W. Taylor (1856 1915).

In a 1911 book entitled Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor outlined

his theories and eventually implemented them on American factory floors. He is

credited with helping to define the role of training, wage incentives, employee

selection, and work standards in organizational performance.

Researchers began to adopt a less mechanical view of organizations and to pay

more attention to human influences in the 1930s. This development was motivated

by several studies that shed light on the function of human fulfillment in

organizations. The best known of these was probably the so-called Hawthorn

Studies. These studies, conducted primarily under the direction of Harvard

University researcher Elton Mayo, were conducted in the mid-1920s and 1930s at

a Western Electric Company plant known as the Hawthorn Works. The company

wanted to determine the degree to which working conditions affected output.

Surprisingly, the studies failed to show any significant positive correlation

between workplace conditions and productivity. In one study, for example,

worker productivity escalated when lighting was increased, but it also

increased when illumination was decreased. The results of the studies

demonstrated that innate forces of human behavior may have a greater influence

on organizations than do mechanistic incentive systems. The legacy of the

Hawthorn studies and other organizational research efforts of that period was

an emphasis on the importance of individual and group interaction, humanistic

management skills, and social relationships in the workplace.

The focus on human influences in organizations was reflected most noticeably by

the integration of Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of human needs" into

organization theory. Maslow's theories introduced two important implications

into organization theory. The first was that people have different needs and

therefore need to be motivated by different incentives to achieve

organizational objectives. The second of Maslow's theories held that people's

needs change over time, meaning that as the needs of people lower in the

hierarchy are met, new needs arise. These assumptions led to the recognition,

for example, that assembly-line workers could be more productive if more of

their personal needs were met, whereas past theories suggested that monetary

rewards were the sole, or primary, motivators.

Douglas McGregor contrasted the organization theory that emerged during the

mid-1900s to previous views. In the 1950s, McGregor offered his renowned Theory

X and Theory Y to explain the differences. Theory X encompassed the old view of

workers, which held that employees preferred to be directed, wanted to avoid

responsibility, and cherished financial security above all else.

McGregor believed that organizations that embraced Theory Y were generally more

productive. This theory held that humans can learn to accept and seek

responsibility; most people possess a high degree of imaginative and

problem-solving ability; employees are capable of effective self-direction; and

that self-actualization is among the most important rewards that organizations

can provide their workers.

OPEN-SYSTEMS THEORY

Traditional theories regarded organizations as closed systems that were

autonomous and isolated from the outside world. In the 1960s, however, more

holistic and humanistic ideologies emerged. Recognizing that traditional theory

had failed to take into account many environmental influences that impacted the

efficiency of organizations, most theorists and researchers embraced an

open-systems view of organizations.

The term "open systems" reflected the newfound belief that all organizations

are unique in part because of the unique environment in which they operate and

that they should be structured to accommodate unique problems and

opportunities. For example, research during the 1960s indicated that

traditional bureaucratic organizations generally failed to succeed in

environments where technologies or markets were rapidly changing. They also

failed to realize the importance of regional cultural influences in motivating

workers.

Environmental influences that affect open systems can be described as either

specific or general. The specific environment refers to the network of

suppliers, distributors, government agencies, and competitors with which a

business enterprise interacts. The general environment encompasses four

influences that emanate from the geographic area in which the organization

operates. These are:

Cultural values, which shape views about ethics and determine the relative

importance of various issues.

Economic conditions, which include economic upswings, recessions, regional

unemployment, and many other regional factors that affect a company's ability

to grow and prosper. Economic influences may also partially dictate an

organization's role in the economy.

Legal/political environment, which effectively helps to allocate power within a

society and to enforce laws. The legal and political systems in which an open

system operates can play a key role in determining the long-term stability and

security of the organization's future. These systems are responsible for

creating a fertile environment for the business community, but they are also

responsible for ensuring via regulations pertaining to operation and taxation

that the needs of the larger community are addressed.

Quality of education, which is an important factor in high technology and other

industries that require an educated work force. Businesses will be better able

to fill such positions if they operate in geographic regions that feature a

strong education system.

The open-systems theory also assumes that all large organizations are comprised

of multiple subsystems, each of which receives inputs from other subsystems and

turns them into outputs for use by other subsystems. The subsystems are not

necessarily represented by departments in an organization, but might instead

resemble patterns of activity.

An important distinction between open-systems theory and more traditional

organization theories is that the former assumes a subsystem hierarchy, meaning

that not all of the subsystems are equally essential. Furthermore, a failure in

one subsystem will not necessarily thwart the entire system. By contrast,

traditional mechanistic theories implied that a malfunction in any part of a

system would have an equally debilitating impact.

BASIC ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Organizations differ greatly in size, function, and makeup. Nevertheless, the

operations of nearly all organizations from the multinational corporation to a

newly opened delicatessen are based on a division of labor; a decision-making

structure; and rules and policies. The degree of formality with which these

aspects of business are approached vary tremendously within the business world,

but these characteristics are inherent in any business enterprise that utilizes

the talents of more than one person.

Organizations practice division of labor both vertically and horizontally.

Vertical division includes three basic levels top, middle, and bottom. The

chief function of top managers, or executives, typically is to plan long-term

strategy and oversee middle managers. Middle managers generally guide the

day-to-day activities of the organization and administer top-level strategy.

Low-level managers and laborers put strategy into action and perform the

specific tasks necessary to keep the organization operating.

Organizations also divide labor horizontally by defining task groups, or

departments, and assigning workers with applicable skills to those groups. Line

units perform the basic functions of the business, while staff units support

line units with expertise and services. In general, line units focus on supply,

production, and distribution, while staff units deal mostly with internal

operations and controls or public relations efforts.

Decision-making structures, the second basic organizational characteristic, are

used to organize authority. These structures vary from operation to operation

in their degree of centralization and decentralization. Centralized decision

structures are referred to as "tall" organizations because important decisions

usually emanate from a high level and are passed down through several channels

until they reach the lower end of the hierarchy. Conversely, flat

organizations, which have decentralized decision-making structures, employ only

a few hierarchical levels. Such organizations are typically guided by a

management philosophy that is favorably disposed toward some form of employee

empowerment and individual autonomy.

A formalized system of rules and policies is the third standard organizational

characteristic. Rules, policies, and procedures serve as templates of

managerial guidance in all sectors of organizational production and behavior.

They may document the most efficient means of accomplishing a task or provide

standards for rewarding workers. Formalized rules provide managers with more

time to spend on other problems and opportunities and help ensure that an

organization's various subsystems are working in concert. Ill-conceived or

poorly implemented rules, of course, can actually have a negative impact on

business efforts to produce goods or services in a profitable or satisfactory

manner.

Thus, organizations can be categorized as informal or formal, depending on the

degree of formalization of rules within their structures. In formal

organizations, say researchers, management has determined that a comparatively

impersonal relationship between individuals and the company for which they work

is viewed as the best environment for achieving organizational goals.

Subordinates have less influence over the process in which they participate,

with their duties more clearly defined.

Informal organizations, on the other hand, are less likely to adopt or adhere

to a significant code of written rules or policies. Instead, individuals are

more likely to adopt patterns of behavior that are influenced by a number of

social and personal factors. Changes in the organization are less often the

result of authoritative dictate and more often an outcome of collective

agreement by members. Informal organizations tend to be more flexible and more

reactive to outside influences. But some critics contend that such arrangements

may also diminish the ability of top managers to effect rapid change.

ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY IN THE 1980S AND 1990S

By the 1980s several new organizational system theories received significant

attention. These included Theory Z, a blending of American and Japanese

management practices. This theory was a highly visible one, in part because of

Japan's well-documented productivity improvements and the United States'

manufacturing difficulties during that decade. Other theories, or adaptations

of existing theories, emerged as well, which most observers saw as indicative

of the ever-changing environment within business and industry.

The study of organizations and their management and production structures and

philosophies continued to thrive throughout the 1990s. Indeed, an understanding

of various organizational principles continues to be seen as vital to the

success of all kinds of organizations from government agencies to business of

all shapes and sizes, from conglomerates to small businesses. The study

continues and although academics are far from a single theory of organization

development each serious academic undertaking adds to the knowledge base on the

subject. The changes in the ways in which we communicate and others brought

about by advances in technology will likely create more opportunity for study.

As our societies change, so to do the ways in which our organizations operate.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hatch, Mary Jo. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern

Perspectives. OUP-USA, 1997.

Nickelson, Jack A., and Todd R. Zenger. "Being Efficiently Fickle: A dynamic

theory of organizational choice." Organizational Science. September-October

2002.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey. New Directions for Organization Theory: Problems and

Prospects. Oxford University Press, 1997.

Putnam, Linda L., and Fredrick M. Jablin. New Handbook of Organizational

Communications: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods. Sage Publications

Inc., December 2004.

Wagner-Tsukamoto, Sigmund. Human Nature and Organization Theory. Edward Elgar

Publishing, 2003.

http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/organization-theory.html