Session 1. Organizational Theories
Session 1. Organizational Theories
Organizational theories
DATE
TIME
TRAINER
OBJECTIVES
At the end of this session, participants will be able to understand and appreciate:
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
REQUIRED READING
BACKGROUND READING
None.
There are several theories which explain the organization and its structure (EXHIBIT 1).
Classical organization theory includes the scientific management approach, Weber's
bureaucratic approach, and administrative theory.
· structure;
· specialization;
· predictability and stability;
· rationality; and
· democracy.
Show EXHIBIT 3, and discuss Weber's bureaucratic approach. Observe that this approach
is considered rigid, impersonal, self-perpetuating and empire building.
Administrative theory was propounded by Henry Fayol and is based on several principles
of management (EXHIBIT 4). In addition, management was considered as a set of
planning, organizing, training, commanding and coordinating functions.
Ask participants whether they consider the research organization as a social system. Since
scientists constitute the core resource in a research organization, their growth is as
important as the growth of the organization. A social organization is characterized by
complexity, degrees of inter-dependence between sub-systems, openness, balance and
multiplicity of purposes, functions and objectives. Show EXHIBIT 8 and discuss each of
these characteristics.
Now move to goal setting in an organization. Ask participants "Why should goals be set?"
Goals are set to increase performance and provide control. Show EXHIBIT 9 and discuss
how goal setting improves performance. How are goals set? Following management by
objectives, the process of goal setting involves five steps (EXHIBIT 10). First, the overall
objectives of the organization are set and then an action plan is evolved. The second step
is to prepare members in the organization for successful implementation of the action plan.
Individual goals are set in the third step. Periodic appraisal and feedback is the fourth step,
to ensure smooth implementation of the action plan. Finally, an appraisal of performance
by results takes place.
Now discuss the concept of integration and coordination in the organization. These are
controlling mechanisms for smooth functioning of the organization. Organizational
differentiation is the unbundling and re-arranging of the activities. Integration is re-grouping
and re-linking them. The need for integration arises in the face of environmental
complexity, diversity and change. Show EXHIBIT 11 and discuss some of the important
reasons which necessitate integration.
How is integration achieved? Obviously, the structure of the organization should facilitate
proper coordination and integration of different specialized units. What could happen were
the organizational structure not proper? Integration is achieved through vertical
coordination along the hierarchy, decision making levels, and span of control (EXHIBIT 12).
There are several methods to improve integration. These include rules and procedures and
professional training.
Next discuss the process in the organization, which involves the concept of power, decision
making and communication. Power refers to the ability to get an individual or group to do
something or to change in some way. Power could emanate from position, economic
status, knowledge, performance, personality, physical or ideological traits. Observe that
power is one of the strongest motives, and affects setting of objectives and availability of
resources in an organization. Next discuss the concept, and the various types of
organization-based power (EXHIBIT 13).
Finally, discuss decision making in an organization. It begins with goal setting, identification
and evaluation of alternatives and the choice of criteria. Show EXHIBIT 15 and discuss the
important steps involved in decision making. There are several models of decision making
(EXHIBIT 16).
NEOCLASSICAL THEORY
· Systems approach
· Socio-technical approach
· Contingency or Situational approach
Structure
Specialization
Predictability and stability
Rationality
Democracy
INDIVIDUAL
WORK GROUP
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT
· Systems viewpoint
· Dynamic process of interaction
· Multilevelled and multidimensional
· Multimotivated
· Probabilistic
· Multidisciplinary
· Descriptive
· Multivariable
· Adaptive
COMPONENTS
· The individual
· The formal and informal organization
· Patterns of behaviour
· Role perception
· The physical environment
LINKING PROCESSES
· Communication
· Balance
· Decision analysis
GOALS OF ORGANIZATION
· Growth
· Stability
· Interaction
ß
ß
Complexity
Degree of inter-dependence between sub-systems
Openness of the social organization
Balance in the social organization
Multiplicity of purposes, functions and objectives
· Specialization
· Conflict resolution
REWARD POWER
COERCIVE POWER
EXPERT POWER
CHARISMATIC POWER
UPWARD
Ü Ü Ü HORIZONTAL Þ Þ Þ
DOWNWARD
GENERATING ALTERNATIVES
CHOOSING AN ALTERNATIVE
Modern theories
The research organization as a social system
Process in the organization
References
Organizational theories which explain the organization and its structure can be broadly
classified as classical or modern.
Classical organization theories (Taylor, 1947; Weber, 1947; Fayol, 1949) deal with the
formal organization and concepts to increase management efficiency. Taylor presented
scientific management concepts, Weber gave the bureaucratic approach, and Fayol
developed the administrative theory of the organization. They all contributed significantly to
the development of classical organization theory.
Taylor developed the following four principles of scientific management for improving
productivity:
Considering the organization as a segment of broader society, Weber (1947) based the
concept of the formal organization on the following principles:
Weber's theory is infirm on account of dysfunctions (Hicks and Gullett, 1975) such as
rigidity, impersonality, displacement of objectives, limitation of categorization, self-
perpetuation and empire building, cost of controls, and anxiety to improve status.
Administrative theory
The elements of administrative theory (Fayol, 1949) relate to accomplishment of tasks, and
include principles of management, the concept of line and staff, committees and functions
of management.
· Unity of command This means taking orders from and being responsible to
only one superior.
· Unity of direction Members of the organization should jointly work toward the
same goals.
· Scalar chain If two members who are on the same level of hierarchy have to
work together to accomplish a project, they need not follow the hierarchy level,
but can interact with each other on a 'gang plank' if acceptable to the higher
officials.
· Order The organization has a place for everything and everyone who ought
to be so engaged.
· Esprit de corps Pride, allegiance and a sense of belonging are essential for
good performance. Union is strength.
· The concept of line and staff The concept of line and staff is relevant in
organizations which are large and require specialization of skill to achieve
organizational goals. Line personnel are those who work directly to achieve
organizational goals. Staff personnel include those whose basic function is to
support and help line personnel.
Neoclassical theory
The classical approach stressed the formal organization. It was mechanistic and ignored
major aspects of human nature. In contrast, the neoclassical approach introduced an
informal organization structure and emphasized the following principles:
· The work group The neoclassical approach highlighted the social facets of
work groups or informal organizations that operate within a formal
organization. The concept of 'group' and its synergistic benefits were
considered important.
Note the difference between Taylor's 'scientific management' - which focuses on work - and
the neoclassical approach - which focuses on workers.
Modern theories
Modern theories tend to be based on the concept that the organization is a system which
has to adapt to changes in its environment. In modern theory, an organization is defined as
a designed and structured process in which individuals interact for objectives (Hicks and
Gullet, 1975). The contemporary approach to the organization is multidisciplinary, as many
scientists from different fields have contributed to its development, emphasizing the
dynamic nature of communication and importance of integration of individual and
organizational interests. These were subsequently re-emphasized by Bernard (1938) who
gave the first modern and comprehensive view of management. Subsequently, conclusions
on systems control gave insight into application of cybernetics. The operation research
approach was suggested in 1940. It utilized the contributions of several disciplines in
problem solving. Von Bertalanffy (1951) made a significant contribution by suggesting a
component of general systems theory which is accepted as a basic premise of modern
theory.
Some of the notable characteristics of the modern approaches to the organization are:
· a systems viewpoint,
· a dynamic process of interaction,
· multilevelled and multidimensional,
· multimotivated,
· probabilistic,
· multidisciplinary,
· descriptive,
· multivariable, and
· adaptive.
(i) Components There are five basic, interdependent parts of the organizing
system, namely:
· the individual,
· the formal and informal organization,
· patterns of behaviour emerging from role demands of the
organization,
Socio-technical approach
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 (who are part of the organization's external environment).
Therefore, an equilibrium among the social system, the technical system and the
environment is necessary to make the organization more effective.
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.
Goal setting
Integration and coordination
satisfy specific human needs in interaction with other sub-systems of human activities and
resources in the given environment. In a research organization, individual needs of
researchers are more often in conflict with organizational needs than in any other
organization. Therefore, growth of the organization should concurrently also promote
growth of the individual.
· Balance and the social organization Social organizations are highly dynamic.
Forces such as researchers, managerial hierarchy and various inputs from
within and outside the organization have to be balanced for the smooth
functioning of the organization.
Goal setting
In an organization, goal setting is one of the control systems, a component of the appraisal
process and an effective tool for human resource management (Locke, 1968; Sherwin,
1976). The concept of goal setting is now used to increase the performance of the
organization as well as the individual through management by objectives. Drucker (1954)
suggested that management by objectives can be useful for managers for effectively
managing the future direction of the organization.
· solving specific problems related to the work as they emerge during the
process of goal setting;
· providing some control over the people and their work in an organization.
Goals are an objective way of assessing performance in the organization.
There is a definite linkage between goal setting and performance. Latham (1981) reported
that
· difficult and challenging but attainable goals are better than relatively easy
goals,
· objective and timely feedback about progress toward goals is better than no
feedback.
Peter Drucker suggested thirty years ago that a systematic approach to goal setting and
appraising by results leads to improved organizational performance and employee
satisfaction. This concept of goal setting is now widely used in most organizations. The
process of goal setting (or management by objectives as it is often called) involves several
steps (Luthans, 1985):
(i) The first step in the process is setting general organizational objectives and
preparing an action plan. Goal setting is based on a top-down approach, and
involves:
(ii) Once goals are formulated, the second step is to activate the system for
implementation. For successful implementation of such a system, it is essential
to prepare the members in the organization.
(iii) The third step is to set individual goals. Individual goals are decided jointly
by superiors and subordinates. Once goals are finalized, an action plan is
developed for implementation.
(v) Finally comes appraisal of performance of the individual against the set
targets. An appraisal and feedback system is an important part of goal setting.
The individual is given feedback on his or her performance, and provided with
suitable rewards and motivation.
Methods of integration
Achieving integration
· The unity of command principle. Every worker should report to only one
manager.
A manager has to decide about the levels at which decisions are to be taken, and this
would depend upon the type, impact and values of decisions.
· Similarity of functions.
· Complexity of supervised functions.
· Direction and control needed by subordinates.
· Coordination required by the manager.
· Planning required by the manager.
· Organizational help received by the manager.
There are several ways to improve integration, the most common being through a
hierarchy of authority. For this, specialized units whose activities are inter-related could be
put under one manager.
Norms for proper functioning of the organization are evolved through organizational
processes. These relate to power, decision making, communication, motivation and
leadership. Socialization also plays a significant role.
Four categories of organizational power can identified, according to source (French and
Raven, 1959):
· Reward power This refers to the control over rewards desired by others. This
is given by persons at a higher level or by decision-makers.
· Coercive power This is the power to give punishment. This too is given by
persons at a higher level or by decision-makers.
· Charismatic power This derives from the sensitivity of the owner. This
facilitates association with others.
The communication process consists of seven steps (Shannon and Weaver, 1949):
message, encoding, transmitting, receiving, decoding, understanding and feedback.
Decision making is choosing among alternatives. It starts with goal setting in the
organization, and entails searching for alternatives, analysing alternatives and choosing
criteria. Decisions may pertain to
The process of decision making involves nine steps (Hicks and Gullet, 1975; Anderson
1988):
There are five major models for decision making in an organization (Gortner, Mahler and
Nicholson, 1987). They are:
alternatives.
· Peters and Waterman's well managed model (also called the garbage can or
non-decision making model) aims at formulating a descriptive model of choice
which focuses on the expressive character of decision making in the
organization. It does not consider rationality and incrementation. This method
is based on an empirical perception of how successful organizations are being
run.
Certainty decisions are largely made by managers at lower levels under known conditions
with known outcomes. For such decisions, nearly complete information is available.
Quantitative techniques are not usually required to make certainty decisions. However,
calculus and a few mathematical programming techniques can be useful.
Risk decisions are more difficult to make than certainty decisions because of limited
information and the possibility of several outcomes for each alternative. Most risk decisions
are taken at higher levels. For risk decisions, probability techniques (objective and
subjective probability) are widely used.
Decisions under uncertainty are the most intricate. For such decisions, probability
techniques are of limited help. However, minimax analysis and Bayes's procedure can be
used in refining the decision making process under conditions of uncertainty. Minimax
analysis attempts to calculate the worst outcome that can occur for each alternative,
whereas Bayes's procedure is based on the concept of expected value and assumes that
each possible outcome has an equal chance of occurring.
References
Albrecht, K. 1983. New systems view of the organization. pp. 44-59, in: Organization
Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, C.R. 1988. Management: Skills, Functions and Organization Performance. New
York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Bakke, W.E. 1959. Concept of social organization. pp. 16-75, in: Haire, M. (ed), Modern
Organization Theory, New York, NY: John Wiley.
Barkdull, C.W. 1963. Span of Control: A method of evaluation. Michigan Business Review,
15(3).
Bernard, C. 1938. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. See pages 65-114.
Burns, T.G., & Stalker, G.M. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock
Institute.
David, S.M., & Lawrence, P.R. 1978. Problems of matrix organizations. Harvard Business
Review, May-June: 131-142.
Drucker, P.F. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York, NY: Harper.
www.fao.org/3/w7503e/w7503e03.htm#exhibit 1: organization theories 19/21
10/4/2019 Session 1. Organizational theories
French, J.R.P., Jr., & Raven, B. 1959. The bases of social power. pp. 156-165, in:
Cartwright, D. (ed), Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Galbraith, J.K. 1956. American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gortner, H.F., Mahler, J., & Nicholson, J.B. 1987. Organization Theory. Reading, MA:
Dorsey Press. See pages 244-266.
Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (eds) 1937. Papers on the Science of Administration. New York,
NY: Institute of Public Administration.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum J.W., Jr. 1973. Organization theory: a contingency approach.
Business Horizons, April, 1973.
Hicks, G.H., & Gullet, C.R. 1975. Organizations: Theory and Behaviour. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill. See pages 245-259.
Huse, E.F., & Bowditch, J.L. 1973. Behaviour in Organizations. The Philippines: Addison-
Wesley. See pages 27-44.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY: John
Wiley.
Latham, G.P. et. al., 1981. Goal setting and task performance: 1969-80. Psychological
Bulletin, July: 125-152.
Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. 1967. Differentiation and integration in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, June: 1-47.
Locke, E.A. 1968. Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational
Behaviour and Human Performance, May: 157-89.
Milgram, S. 1974. Obedience to Authority. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Pasmore, W.A. 1988. Designing Effective Organizations, New York, NY: John Wiley. See
pages 87-109.
Roethlisberger, F.J., & Dickson, J.W. 1943. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Seiznick, P. 1949. TVA and the Grass Roots. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Shannon, C.E., & Weaver, W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press.
Sherwin, D.S. 1976. Management of objectives. Harvard Business Review, May-June: 149-
160.
Taylor, F.W. 1947. Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY: Harper.
Tosi, H.L., Rizzo, J.R., & Carroll, S. 1986. Managing Organizational Behaviour. New York,
NY: Pitman.
Von Bertalanffy, L. 1951. General systems theory: a new approach to the unit of science.
Human Biology, December.
Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by Talcott
Parsons. New York, NY: Free Press.