Eric Pimenta

Jan 5, 2016
·
1 min read
·
Listen

A Reflection on the Importance of

Communication

Communication is scientifically defined as the activity of conveying

information through the exchange of thoughts, messages or
information by speech, visuals, signals, writing or behavior.
Communication adds meaning to the things we experience each and
every day; without it, the world we live in would be much more
different and chaotic.

Communication is the universal basis of understanding our

environment. Each and every interaction we make revolves around
the use of symbols; whether it is the written or spoken word and
body language, there is an associated meaning with those words.
Relationships are contingent on whether or not the
communication between individuals has been successful.

Communication is the foundation of all relationships and is vital to

every company that needs to engage its stakeholders. Without effective
communication, relationships may be tarnished due to one party not
fully understanding the other, and in most cases, it is the company that
fails to deliver a clear message that brings clarity to the benefits they
provide.

Clear and consistent communication within an organization is the

foundation of keeping employees engaged and empowered. It is vital
that communication remains productive and reinforces the
relationship between co-workers, because a positive environment is
paramount to developing a strong organizational culture.

Often taken for granted, communication is the key to every successful

organization. We see its importance more and more each day.

Organizational theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Not to be confused with Organization theory (Castells).

Part of a series on

Sociology
  History
 Outline
 Index

show

Key themes

show

Perspectives

show

Branches

show

Methods

show

People

show

Lists

 Society portal
 WikiProject Sociology

 v
 t
 e

A theory involves concepts or constructs that are related in such a way as to explain
why certain phenomena occur. An organizational theory involves a set of
concepts/constructs that are related to each other and explain how individuals behave
in social units we call organizations. Organizational theory also attempts to explain how
interrelated units of organization do or do not connect with each other. Organizational
theory also concerns understanding how groups of individuals behave, which may differ
from the behavior of an individual. The behavior organizational theory often focuses on
is goal-directed. Organizational theory can cover intra-organizational as well as inter-
organizational fields of study.
In the early 20th century, theories of organizations initially took a rational perspective
but have since become more diverse. In a rational organization system, there are two
significant parts: Specificity of Goals and Formalization. The division of labor is the
specialization of individual labor roles, associated with increasing output and
trade. Modernization theorist Frank Dobbin wrote that "modern institutions are
transparently purposive and that we are in the midst of an extraordinary progression
towards more efficiency." Max Weber's conception of bureaucracy is characterized by
the presence of impersonal positions that are earned and not inherited, rule-
governed decision-making, professionalism, chain of command, defined responsibility,
and bounded authority. Contingency theory holds that an organization must try to
maximize performance by minimizing the effects of varying environmental and internal
constraints.[1]
Dwight Waldo in 1978 wrote that "[o]rganization theory is characterized by
vogues, heterogeneity, claims and counterclaims."[2] Organization theory cannot be
described as an orderly progression of ideas or a unified body of knowledge in which
each development builds carefully on and extends the one before it. Rather,
developments in theory and descriptions for practice show disagreement about the
purposes and uses of a theory of organization, the issues to which it should address
itself (such as supervisory style and organizational culture), and the concepts and
variables that should enter into such a theory.[citation needed]

Contents

 1Background

o 1.1Rise of organizations

o 1.2Developments in theory

 2Weberian bureaucracy

o 2.1Summary of characteristics of Weberian bureaucracy

o 2.2Efficiency and teleological arguments

o 2.3Criticism

 3Rational system perspective

o 3.1Formal Organization

o 3.2Scientific management

 4Division of labor

 5Modernization theory
  6Hawthorne study

o 6.1Results

o 6.2Criticism

 7Polyphonic organizations

o 7.1Theory of the polyphonic organization

 8Contingency theory

o 8.1Factors

o 8.2Criticism

 9See also

 10References

 11Further reading

 12External links

Background[edit]
Rise of organizations[edit]
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the
United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the
subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page,
or create a new article, as appropriate. (March 2015) (Learn how and when
to remove this template message)

In 1820, about 20% of the United States population depended on a wage income. That
percentage increased to 90% by 1950.[3] Generally, by 1950, farmers and craftsmen
were the only people not dependent on working for someone else. Prior to that time,
most people were able to survive by hunting and farming their own food, making their
own supplies, and remaining almost fully self-sufficient.[3] As transportation became
more efficient and technologies developed, self-sufficiency became an economically
poor choice.[4] As in the Lowell textile mills, various machines and processes were
developed for each step of the production process, thus making mass production a
cheaper and faster alternative to individual production. In addition, as the population
grew and transportation improved, the pre-organizational system struggled to support
the needs of the market.[4] These conditions made for a wage-dependent population that
sought out jobs in growing organizations, leading to a shift away from individual and
family production.
In addition to a shift to wage dependence, externalities from industrialization also
created a perfect opportunity for the rise of organizations. Various negative effects such
as pollution, workplace accidents, crowded cities, and unemployment became rising
concerns. Rather than small groups such as families and churches being able to control
these problems as they had in the past, new organizations and systems were required.
[3]
These organizations were less personal, more distant, and more centralized, but what
they lacked in locality they made up for in efficiency.[3]
Along with wage dependency and externalities, the growth of industry also played a
large role in the development of organizations. Markets that were quickly growing
needed workers urgently, so a need developed for organizational structures to guide
and support those new workers.[5] Some of the first New England factories initially relied
on the daughters of farmers; later, as the economy changed, they began to gain
workers from the former farming classes, and finally, from European immigrants. Many
Europeans left their homes for the promises of US industry, and about 60% of those
immigrants stayed in the country. They became a permanent class of workers in the
economy, which allowed factories to increase production and produce more than they
had before.[3] With this large growth came the need for organizations and
for leadership that was not previously needed in small businesses and firms.
Overall, the historical and social context in which organizations arose in the United
States allowed not only for the development of organizations, but also for their spread
and growth. Wage dependency, externalities, and growth of industries all played into the
change from individual, family, and small-group production and regulation to large
organizations and structure.
Although the decline in small business might not seem to explain the way in which the
development of organizations leads to increased aggregate economic return, it
exemplifies the competitive nature of capitalism. As organizations develop, they devour
smaller organizations that cannot keep up and allow for the evolution of innovative
management and production techniques, which can then be used by other
larger companies. The development of organizations demands more highly skilled
workers as they continue to grow. It also builds precautionary measures on cutting-edge
technology.[citation needed] It increases the need for specialization and accounts of functionalism
in various organizations and their respective societies. Through much advancement in
the interaction of capitalistic bureaucracies, the development of organizations has
driven contemporary firms to thrive in[clarification needed] modern society.[citation needed]
Developments in theory[edit]
As people implemented organizations over time, many researchers have experimented
as to which organizational theory fits them best. The theories of organizations include
bureaucracy, rationalization (scientific management), and the division of labor. Each
theory provides distinct advantages and disadvantages when implemented.
The classical perspective emerges from the Industrial Revolution in the private sector
and the need for improved Public Administration in the public sector. Both efforts center
on theories of efficiency. Classical works have seasoned and have been elaborated
upon in depth.[6] There are at least two subtopics under the classical perspective: the
scientific management and bureaucracy theory.[7]
A number of sociologists and psychologists made major contributions to the study of the
neoclassical perspective, which is also known as the human relations school of thought.
The human relations movement was a movement which had the primary concerns of
concentrating on topics such as morale, leadership. This perspective began in the
1920s with the Hawthorne studies, which gave emphasis to "affective and socio-
psychological aspects of human behavior in organizations."[8] The study, taking place at
the "Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932," would
make Elton Mayo and his colleagues the most important contributors to the neoclassical
perspective.[9]
There was a wave of scholarly attention to organizational theory in the 1950s, which
from some viewpoints held the field to still be in its infancy. A 1959 symposium held by
the Foundation for Research on Human Behavior in Ann Arbor, Michigan, was
published as Modern Organization Theory. Among a group of eminent organizational
theorists active during this decade were E. Wight Bakke, Chris Argyris, James G.
March, Rensis Likert, Jacob Marschak, Anatol Rapoport, and William Foote Whyte.[10]

Weberian bureaucracy[edit]
Main article: Weberian bureaucracy

The scholar most closely associated with a theory of bureaucracy is Max Weber.
In Economy and Society, his seminal book published in 1922, Weber describes its
features. Bureaucracy, as characterized in Weber's terminology of ideal types, is
marked by the presence of positions that are earned and not inherited. Rules govern
decision-making. Those in positions of authority demonstrate professionalism. There is
a chain of command and position-defined responsibility. Authority is bounded.
Weber begins his discussion of bureaucracy by introducing the concept of jurisdictional
areas: institutions governed by a specific set of rules or laws.[11] In a jurisdictional area,
regular activities are assigned as official duties. The authority to assign duties is
governed by a set of rules. Duties are fulfilled continuously by qualified individuals.
These elements make up a bureaucratic agency in the case of the state and
bureaucratic enterprises in the private sector.
There are several additional features that make up a Weberian bureaucracy:[11]

 It is possible to find the utilization of hierarchical subordination in all bureaucratic

structures. This means that higher-level offices supervise lower-level offices.
 In bureaucracies, personal possessions are kept separate from the monies of the
agency or the enterprise.
 People who work within a bureaucracy are usually trained in the appropriate field of
specialization.
 Bureaucratic officials are expected to contribute their full working capacity to the
organization.
 Positions within a bureaucratic organization must follow a specific set of general
rules.
Weber argued that in a bureaucracy, taking on a position or office signifies an
assumption of specific duties necessary for the smooth running of the organization. This
conception is distinct from historical working relationships in which a worker served a
specific ruler, not an institution.[11]
The hierarchical nature of bureaucracies allows employees to demonstrate achieved
social status.[11] When an officeholder is elected instead of appointed, that person is no
longer a purely bureaucratic figure. He derives his power "from below" instead of "from
above." When a high-ranking officer selects officials, they are more likely to be chosen
for reasons related to the benefit of the superior than the competency of the new hire.
When high-skilled employees are necessary for the bureaucracy and public opinion
shapes decision-making, competent officers are more likely to be selected.[11]
According to Weber, if 'tenure for life' is legally guaranteed, an office becomes
perceived as less prestigious than a position that can be replaced at any time. If 'tenure
for life' or a 'right to the office' develops, there is a decrease in career opportunities for
ambitious new hires and overall technical efficiency becomes less guaranteed.[11] In a
bureaucracy, salaries are provided to officials. The amount is determined on the basis
of rank and helps to signify the desirability of a position. Bureaucratic positions also
exist as part of stable career tracks that reward office-holders for seniority.[11]
Weber argues that the development of a money economy is the "normal precondition for
the unchanged survival, if not the establishment, of pure bureaucratic
administrations."[11] Since bureaucracy requires sustained revenues from taxation or
private profits in order to be maintained, a money economy is the most rational way to
ensure its continued existence.
Weber posits that officials in a bureaucracy have a property right to their office and
attempt at exploitation by a superior means the abandonment of bureaucratic principles.
He articulates that providing a status incentive to inferior officers helps them to maintain
self-respect and fully participate in hierarchical frameworks.[11] Michel
Crozier reexamined Weber's theory in 1964 and determined that bureaucracy is flawed
because hierarchy causes officers to engage in selfish power struggles that damage the
efficiency of the organization.[12]
Summary of characteristics of Weberian bureaucracy[edit]
Weber identified the following components of bureaucracy as essential:[13]

 Official jurisdiction in all areas is ordered by rules or laws already implemented.

 There is an office hierarchy; a system of super- and sub-ordination in which higher
offices supervise lower ones.
 The management of the modern office is based upon written rules, which are
preserved in their original form.
 Office management requires training and specialization.
 When the office is developed/established it requires the full working capacity of
individuals.
 Rules are stable and can be learned. Knowledge of these rules can be viewed as
expertise within the bureaucracy (these allow for the management of society).
When a bureaucracy is implemented, it can provide accountability, responsibility,
control, and consistency. The hiring of employees will be an impersonal and equal
system.[13] Although the classical perspective encourages efficiency, it is
often[quantify] criticized as ignoring human needs. Also, it rarely takes into consideration
human error or the variability of work performances (since each worker is different).
In the case of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, NASA managers overlooked the
possibility of human error.[14] (See also: Three Mile Island accident.)[15]
Efficiency and teleological arguments[edit]
Weber believed that a bureaucracy consists of six specific characteristics: hierarchy of
command, impersonality, written rules of conduct, advancement based on achievement,
specialized division of labor, and efficiency.[16] This ultimate characteristic of Weberian
bureaucracy, which states that bureaucracies are very efficient, is controversial and by
no means accepted by all sociologists. There are certainly both positive and negative
consequences to bureaucracy and strong arguments for both the efficiency and
inefficiency of bureaucracies.
While Max Weber's work was published in the late 1800s and early 1900s, before his
death in 1920, his work is still referenced today in the field of sociology. Weber's theory
of bureaucracy claims that it is extremely efficient, and even goes as far as to claim that
bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization.[17] Weber claimed that
bureaucracies are necessary to ensure the continued functioning of society, which has
become drastically more modern and complex in the past century.[18] Furthermore, he
claimed that without the structured organization of bureaucracy, our complex society
would be much worse off, because society would act in an inefficient and wasteful way.
[18]
He saw bureaucracies as organizations driven towards certain goals, which they
could carry out efficiently. In addition, within an organization that operates under
bureaucratic standards, the members will be better off due to the heavy regulation and
detailed structure. Not only does bureaucracy make it much more difficult for arbitrary
and unfair personal favors to be carried out, it also means that promotions and hiring
will generally be done completely by merit.[18]
Weber regarded bureaucracies as goal-driven, efficient organizations. But he also
acknowledged their limitations. Weber recognized that there are constraints within the
bureaucratic system. First of all, he noted that bureaucracies are ruled by very few
people with considerable unregulated power.[19] A consequence is oligarchy, whereby a
limited number of officials gain political and economic power.[20] Furthermore, Weber
considered further bureaucratization to be an "inescapable fate" because it is thought to
be superior to and more efficient than other forms of organization.[21] Weber's analysis
led him to believe that bureaucracies are too inherently limiting of individual human
freedom. He feared that people would begin to be too controlled by bureaucracies.[18] In
his view, the strict methods of administration and legitimate forms of authority
associated with bureaucracy act to eliminate human freedom.
Weber tended to offer a teleological argument with regard to bureaucracy. Weber's idea
of bureaucracy is considered teleological to the extent that he posits that bureaucracies
aim to achieve specific goals. Weber claimed that bureaucracies are goal-oriented
organizations that use their efficiency and rational principles to reach their goals.[22] A
teleological analysis of businesses leads to the inclusion of all involved stakeholders in
decision-making.[23] The teleological view of Weberian bureaucracy postulates that all
actors in an organization have various ends or goals, and attempt to find the most
efficient way to achieve these goals.[18]
Criticism[edit]
"There is dangerous risk of oversimplification in making Weber seem cold and heartless
to such a degree that an efficiently-run Nazi death camp might appear admirable."[24] In
reality, Weber believed that by using human logic in his system, organizations could
achieve improvement of human condition in various workplaces.
Another critique of Weber's theory is the argument of efficiency. Highest efficiency, in
theory, can be attained through pure work with no regard for the workers (for example,
long hours with little pay), which is why oversimplification can be dangerous. If we were
to take one characteristic focusing on efficiency, it would seem like Weber is promoting
unhealthy work conditions, when in fact, he wanted the complete opposite. Taking all of
the characteristics that to Weber are hallmarks of bureaucracy, he recognized that a
pure bureaucracy is nearly impossible to attain. Though his theories include
characteristics of a highly efficient organization, these characteristics are only meant to
serve as a model of how a bureaucratic organization works, recognizing that the
manifestation of that model in life differs from the pure model.
With this said, the characteristics of Weber's theory have to all be perfect for a
bureaucracy to function at its highest potential. "Think of the concept as a bureau or
desk with drawers in it, which seems to call out to you, demanding that everything must
fit in its place."[24] If one object in the drawer does not fit properly, the entire drawer
becomes untidy, which is exactly the case in Weber's theory; if one characteristic is not
fulfilled the rest of them are unable to work in unison, leaving the organization
performing below its full potential.
One characteristic that was meant to improve working conditions was his rule that
"Organization follows hierarchical principle – subordinates follow orders or superiors,
but have right of appeal (in contrast to more diffuse structure in traditional
authority)."[25] In other words, everyone in a company or any sort of work environment
has the opportunity and right to disagree or to speak up if they are unhappy with
something rather than not voice their opinion in fear of losing their job. Open
communication is a very important part of Weber's bureaucracy, and is practiced today.
Because of the communication it may not be the most efficient, but Weber would argue
that improved human conditions are more important than efficiency.
Weber's theory is not perfectly instantiated in real life. The elements of his theory are
understood as "ideal types" and are not perfect reflections of individuals in their
organizational roles and their interactions within organizations.[26] Some individuals may
regard Weber's model as good way to run an organization.[24][25][27]

Rational system perspective[edit]

A rational organization system has two significant parts: (1) specificity of goals and (2)
formalization. Goal specification provides guidelines for specific tasks to be completed
along with a regulated way for resources to be allocated. Formalization is a way to
standardize organizational behavior. As a result, there will be stable expectations, which
create the rational organizational system.[28][29]
Scientific management: Frederick Winslow Taylor analyzed how to maximize the
amount of output with the least amount of input. This was Taylor's attempt to rationalize
the individual worker by:

1. dividing work between managers and workers

2. providing an incentive system (based on performance)
3. scientifically trained workers
4. developing a science for each individual's responsibilities
5. making sure work gets done on time/efficiently
Problems arose out of scientific management. One is that the standardization leads
workers to rebel against mundanes. Another may see workers rejecting the incentive
system because they are required to constantly work at their optimum level, an
expectation that may be unrealistic.
Formal Organization[edit]
The concept of formal organization has been touched upon by a number of authors in
the subject of organizational theory, such as Max Weber, whose bureaucratic models
could be said to be an extension of the concept.
In Chester Barnard's book The Functions of the Executive, formal organization is
defined as "a system of contributors’ activities that are consciously coordinated by the
organization’s purpose." This differs from informal organization, such as a human group,
that consists of individuals and their interactions, but do not require these to be
coordinated toward some common purpose, although formal organizations also consist
of informal organizations, as sub-parts of their system.[30]
Scientific management[edit]
Main articles: Scientific management and The Principles of Scientific Management

The scientific management theory was introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor to

encourage production efficiency and productivity.[31] Taylor argues that inefficiencies
could be controlled through managing production as a science. Taylor defines scientific
management as "concerned with knowing exactly what you want men to do and then
see in that they do it in the best and cheapest way."[32] According to Taylor, scientific
management affects both workers and employers, and stresses control of the labor
force by management.
Taylor identifies four inherent principles of the scientific management theory: [32]

1. The creation of a scientific method of measurement that replaces the "rule-of-

thumb" method
2. Emphasis placed on the training of workers by management
3. Cooperation between manager and workers to ensure aforementioned principles
are being met
4. Equal division of labor between managers and workers
Division of labor[edit]
Division of labor is the separation of tasks so that individuals may specialize, leading to
cost efficiency. Adam Smith linked the division of labor to increased efficiency and
output.[33] According to Smith, the division of labor is efficient for three reasons: (a)
occupational specialization, (b) savings from not changing tasks, and (c) machines
augmenting human labor. Occupational specialization leads to increased productivity
and distinct skill. Furthermore, Smith argued that the skill of workers should be matched
with the technology they employ.
Although division of labor is often viewed as inevitable in a capitalism, several problems
emerge. These problems include alienation, lack of creativity, monotony, and lack of
mobility.[34] Adam Smith himself foresaw these problems and described the mental torpor
the division of labor could create in workers.[33] Creativity will naturally suffer due to the
monotonous atmosphere that division of labor creates; repeatedly performing routines
may not suit everyone. Furthermore, division of labor gives rise to employees that are
not familiar with other parts of the job. They cannot assist employees of different parts
of the system.

Modernization theory[edit]
Main article: Modernization theory

Modernization "began when a nation's rural population started moving from the
countryside to cities."[35]: 3 It deals with the cessation of traditional methods in order to
pursue more contemporary effective methods of organization. Urbanization is an
inevitable characteristic of society because the formation of industries and factories
induces profit maximization. It is fair to assume that along with the increase in
population, as a result of the subsequent urbanization, is the demand for an intelligent
and educated labor force.[36][35]: 3 [need quotation to verify] After the 1950s, Western culture utilized mass-
media to communicate their good fortune—attributed to modernization. The coverage
promoted "economic mobility" among the social class and increased the aspirations of
many hopefuls in developing economic countries.[36][35]: 4 [need quotation to verify] Under this theory, any
country could modernize by using Western civilization as a template.
Although this theory of modernization seemed to pride itself on only the benefits,
countries in the Middle East saw this movement in a different light. Middle Eastern
countries believed that the media coverage of modernization implied that the more
"traditional" societies have not "risen to a higher level of technological development." [36][35]:
6
Consequently, they believed a movement that benefits those who have the monetary
resources to modernize technological development would discriminate against the
minorities and poor masses.[36][35]: 6 Thus, they were reluctant to modernize because of the
economic gap it would create between the rich and the poor.[citation needed]
The growth of modernization took place beginning in the 1950s.[citation needed] For the ensuing
decade, people analyzed the diffusion of technological innovations within Western
society and the communication that helped it disperse globally.[37] This first "wave," as it
became known, had some significant ramifications. First, economic development was
enhanced from the spread of new technological techniques. Second, modernization
supported a more educated society (as mentioned above), and thus a more qualified
labor-force.[37] The second wave, taking place between the years 1960 and 1970, was
labeled[by whom?] as anti-modernization, because it saw the push of innovations of Western
society onto developing countries as an exertion of dominance.[37] It refuted the concept
of relying heavily on mass media for the betterment of society.[citation needed] The last wave of
modernization theory, which took place in the 1990s, depicts impersonality.[38]: 737 As the
use of newspapers, television, and radio becomes more prevalent, the need for direct
contact, a concept traditional organizations took pride in, diminishes. Thus,
organizational interactions become more distant.[37]
According to Frank Dobbin, the modern worldview is the idea that "modern institutions
are transparently purposive and that we are in the midst an extraordinary progression
towards more efficiency."[36]: 138 This concept epitomizes the goal of modern firms,
bureaucracies, and organizations to maximize efficiency. The key to achieving this goal
is through scientific discoveries and innovations.[36]: 139 Dobbin discusses the outdated role
of culture in organizations. "New Institutionalists" explored the significance of culture in
the modern organization.[36]: 117 However, the rationalist worldview counters the use of
cultural values in organizations, stating, "transcendental economic laws exist, that
existing organizational structures must be functional under the parameters of those
laws, [and] that the environment will eliminate organizations that adopt non-efficient
solutions."[36]: 138 These laws govern the modern organizations and lead them in the
direction that will maximize profits efficiently. Thus, the modernity of organizations is to
generate maximum profit, through the use of mass media, technological innovations,
and social innovations in order to effectively allocate resources for the betterment of
the global economy.

Hawthorne study[edit]
Main article: Hawthorne study

The Neoclassical perspective began with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s. This
approach gave emphasis to "affective and socio-psychological aspects of human
behavior in organizations."[8]
The Hawthorne study suggested that employees have social and psychological needs
along with economic needs in order to be motivated to complete their assigned tasks.
This theory of management was a product of the strong opposition against "the
Scientific and universal management process theory of Taylor and Fayol."[9] This theory
was a response to the way employees were treated in companies and how they were
deprived of their needs and ambitions.
In November 1924, a team of researcher – professors from the renowned Harvard
Business School began investigating into the human aspects of work and working
conditions at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company, Chicago. The company
was producing bells and other electric equipments for the telephone industry. Prominent
professors in the research team included psychologist Elton Mayo, sociologists
Roethlisberger and Whilehead, and company representative William Dickson. The team
conducted four separate experimental and behavioral studies over a seven-year period.
These were:
 1. "Illumination Experiments (1924–27) to find out the effect of illumination on
worker's productivity."
2. "Relay Assembly Test Room experiment (1927–28) to find out the effect of
changes in number of work hour and related working condition on worker
productivity."
3. "Experiment in interviewing Working: In 1928, a number of researchers went
directly to workers, kept the variables of previous experiment aside, and talked
about what was, in their opinion, important to them. Around 20,000 workers were
interviewed over a period of two years. The interviews enabled the researchers
to discover a rich and intriguing world that was previously undiscovered and
unexamined within the previously undertaken Hawthorne studies. The discovery
of the informal organization and its relationship to the formal organization was
the landmark of experiments in interviewing workers. This experiment led to a
richer understanding of the social and interpersonal dynamics of people at work."
4. "Bank wiring Room Experiments (1931–32) to find out social system of an
organization."
Results[edit]
The Hawthorne studies helped conclude that "a human/social element operated in the
workplace and that productivity increases were as much an outgrowth of group
dynamics as of managerial demands and physical factors."[9] The Hawthorne studies
also concluded that although financial motives were important, social factors are just as
important in defining the worker-productivity.
The Hawthorne Effect was the improvement of productivity between the employees,
characterized by:

 The satisfactory interrelationships between the coworkers

 Classification of personnel as social beings and proposes that sense of belonging in
the workplace is important to increase productivity levels in the workforce.
 An effective management that understood the way people interacted and behaved
within the group.
 The management attempts to improve interpersonal skills through motivations,
leading, communication and counseling.
 Encouragement of managers to acquire minimal knowledge of behavioral sciences
to be able to understand and improve the interactions between employees
Criticism[edit]
Critics believed that Mayo gave a lot of importance to the social side of the study rather
than addressing the needs of an organization. Also, they believed that the study takes
advantage of employees because it influences their emotions by making it seem as if
they are satisfied and content, however it is merely a tool that is being used to further
advance the productivity of the organization.[9]

Polyphonic organizations[edit]
The scholar most closely associated with the research about polyphonic organizations
is de:Niels Åkerstrøm Andersen. Niels Andersen believes that modern organizations
have exploded beyond their original organizational boundaries.[39] For many years,
private companies have automatically been understood as part of the economy in the
same way that political parties are considered a part of politics and museums are
considered a part of art. Today, concepts are linked together, according to Niels
Andersen, is this called the polyphonic organizational-movement. This claim was first
made back in 1963 by Richard M. Cyert and James G. March in the book "A behavioral
theory of the firm". They said that organizations rarely operate with only one value.
According to Cyert and March, organizations actually often operate with more values in
their everyday behavior. Niels Andersen elaborates on this assertion in many of
his publications.
Theory of the polyphonic organization[edit]
Niels Andersen's research about polyphonic organization arise out of his understanding
of the society as functionally differentiated. The society is divided into a number of
countless social systems; communication systems with their own values and
commutative code. Niels Andersen is inspired by the German sociologist Niklas
Luhmann and his theory about social systems. The core element of Luhmann's theory
pivots around the problem of the contingency of the meaning. In other words, the
system theory becomes a theory of communication and how meaning is created within
different social systems.
Niels Anders uses the elements of Luhmann's system theory to describe the
differentiation of society and connect that to the evolution of the modern organization.
According to Andersen, society is functionally differentiated into a wide range of
systems with their own binary code. The binary codes set some distinctions between a
positive and negative value and divide the world in two halves. Understandings of the
world are made throughout one side of the binary code. Andersen says that an
organizational system always communicates and creates meaning through a function
system (binary code). In other words, an organization can only communicate through
one side of one binary code at once.
Throughout history organizations have always used several codes in their
communication, but they have always had a primary codification. Andersen calls this
type of organization a homophonic organization.[39] The homophonic organization is no
longer exercised in today's society. According to Andersen, today we have polyphonic
organizations. Polyphonic organizations have emerged as a result of the way that the
function systems have exploded beyond their organizational forms.
A polyphonic organization is an organization that is connected to several function
systems without a predefined primary function system (multiple binary codifications). In
other words, the polyphonic organization is an organization that describes itself through
many codes.
Andersen addresses how it can be difficult for companies to plan their communication
and action because they have to mediate between many codes at the same time. There
is no longer a predicted hierarchy of codes and therefore no connection between
organizations and specific communication. This can also create management
challenges for companies because they have to take more factors into account
compared to earlier. Andersen's view on polyphonic organizations provides a newer
way to critically examine modern organization and their communication decisions.
Contingency theory[edit]
Main article: Contingency theory

The contingency theory views organization design as "a constrained optimization

problem," meaning that an organization must try to maximize performance by
minimizing the effects of varying environmental and internal constraints.[40] Contingency
theory claims there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to
make decisions. An organizational, leadership, or decision making style that is effective
in some situations, may not be successful in other situations. The optimal organization,
leadership, or decision making style depends upon various internal and external
constraints (factors).
Factors[edit]
Some examples of such constraints (factors) include:

 The size of the organization

 How the firm adapts itself to its environment
 Differences among resources and operations activities
1. Contingency on the organization
In the contingency theory on the organization, it states that there is no universal or one
best way to manage an organization. Secondly, the organizational design and
its subsystems must "fit" with the environment and lastly, effective organizations must
not only have a proper "fit" with the environment, but also between its subsystems.
2. Contingency theory of leadership
In the contingency theory of leadership, the success of the leader is a function of
various factors in the form of subordinate, task, and/ or group variables. The following
theories stress using different styles of leadership appropriate to the needs created by
different organizational situations. Some of these theories are:

 The contingency theory: The contingency model theory, developed by Fred Fiedler,
explains that group performance is a result of interaction between the style of the
leader and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader works.
 The Hersey–Blanchard situational theory: This theory is an extension of Blake and
Mouton's Managerial Grid and Reddin's 3-D Management style theory. This model
expanded the notion of relationship and task dimensions to leadership, and
readiness dimension.
3. Contingency theory of decision-making
The effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the
situation:

 The importance of the decision quality and acceptance.

 The amount of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates.
 The amount of disagreement among subordinates with respect to their alternatives.[41]
Criticism[edit]
It has been argued that the contingency theory implies that a leader switch is the only
method to correct any problems facing leadership styles in certain organizational
structures. In addition, the contingency model itself has been questioned in its
credibility.[42]

See also