Formal and Substantive Rationality - Essay Example

Organizational Studies Organizational Studies Introduction Organizations are social units that are governed bysocial beliefs that are embodied in the culture of a society. Changing or manipulating an organization’s culture may prove to be thorn in the flesh. Leaders of various organizations have significant effect in the orientation of these organizations. Perhaps this is because members of the organizations look up to their leaders. However, no one has developed the best and ideal ways of leading or managing organizations. Management of the organizations can be married with cultural conditions defining that very organization. Several concepts from wide range of scholars have had varied opinion on management. A close examination to majority of their views through the use of high definition (HD) quality glasses illuminates that management is contextualized by evaluating historical conditions. In addition, it is also related to the changing situations alongside circumstances playing a role in management as well as individual career choices (Adler, 2009). The structures of most organizations picture the existence of boss and worker as the distinction. It vindicates the assertions of the capitalist leanings on the concept of division of labor. There is a common resonance that the history of division of labor was developed for social purpose to perpetrate caste system. This paper seeks to describe the concept of organizations study in reference to the distinction between formal rationalization and substantive rationalization. These two concepts are used to analyze scientific management and human relation theory (Khurana, 2009). Substantive rationalization Substantive rationality encompasses directing orders and directives into actions. Individuals may try to consistently put into actions some values that are accepted in his or her surroundings. However, in the modern society some of these values may prove futile to pursue. Solutions to problems are dealt with by postulating the past, present and future with little or lack thereof of calculation. In this type of rationalization values such as loyalty, friendships, among others are incorporated. Moreover, life leanings of the society such as religious leanings, capitalism, socialism among others are highly substance validated before directive to the appropriate actions are given. In most cases the standards of values and actions are clearly postulated. This is by the creation of patterns of series of events that are selected, measured and weighed (Appelrouth & Edles, 2008). The perception in substantive rationalization is that an individual’s rational way of thinking are geared to conform to value embodied in the spirit of the concerned organization. Further insights reveal that in this kind of rationalization, an action or idea or thought may be irrational but in some context depending on the environment and situations at hand it may be rational. For instant, many organizations are driven by inherent desire to make profit and increase the value of share holders. This demonstrates the spirit of capitalism. In this scenario, propagation of the capitalist leanings is irrational as it stalls the expansion of free market. Another similar case of irrationality is that of most politicians. Majority of politicians are driven by selfish interest to occupy position of leadership. Selfish interest driven agenda is considered irrational. In addition, there are those who believe in the knowledge of scientific evidences and prove while there are those that believe on the existence of supernatural being (Adler, 2009). Those who believe in the existence of supernatural being are rational to their beliefs. However, this is otherwise to those who value scientific evidence to their faith hence it maybe irrational to the religious convicts (Baxter & Poullaos, 2009). Formal rationalization This type of rationalization has conflicted on several occasions with the substantive rationalization. It relate to aspects of life and domination structures that may be acquired due to civilization and modernization. Social actions are guided by efficiency, and perceived technical appropriateness. Quantitative aspects through calculations are weighed in before cause of the actions is decided. This type of rationality is characterized by structures of domination. The cause of actions to be taken in a social context is determined by the existing structure of dominance. Domination has been vital in the economic aspect of social structures from time immemorial (Stephen, 2012). In the modern society today formal rationality has been legitimately institutionalized. Weber describes authority as a legitimized dominance where violent approach to solutions to cultural issues is not just condemned but also highly discouraged. Weber further elucidate that when dominance that is not legitimized then the art of coercion is employed and social actions presumed likely to intervene are enacted. Bureaucratic domination is considered as a formal rationality. In this type of domination, rules are regulations are clearly engraved. These actions can be intellectually analyzed. Individuals within the set up are required to adhere to them. Moreover, there is hierarchical structure where those highly placed in offices supervise those lowly ranked. Bureaucratic dominance however gives room for individuals to rise depending on their achievements (Baxter & Poullaos, 2009). The Science of Management Conducting business today encompasses devising numerous strategies that are geared towards increasing production and performance. High performing companies have survived these challenges emanating from economic stabilities and competitive rivalry from other firms offering similar products or services by readjusting appropriately. However, the key to the survival of these organization lie in the management strategies employed as well as human relations between shareholders in these firms. Khuran (2009) relates the management of these organizations to two concepts-Scientific management and the human relation theories. The most common types of management are ordinary management and scientific management. In ordinary management, skills are passed from the high level authority of the concerned organization to workers by word of mouth. In this scenario the workers may not possess the requisite requirements to accomplish the tasks in question. The most skillful of all the workers are then promoted to supervise other fellow works who are perhaps more skillful. In this type of management incentives are given by employer commensurate with the input of the worker. This approach of management the success of the management relies entirely on the initiatives of the workers. The tasks in are not stipulated in advance. The workers have to create duties to be carried out daily. Interestingly, in this approach there is no equal distribution of labor. In comparison to scientific approach to management, the success is absolutely uniform where the worker assumes new role and burdens attached alongside the incentives given. The scientific approach is guided by some principle (Stephen, 2012). These principles are there is a developed science for each element of work; the workers are scientifically selected and trained; cooperation between workers according to the principles of the developed science; and finally there is equal distribution of labor between the management and the employees with the management holistically giving direction and orders on actions to be undertaken (Khurana, 2009). The actions in this type of management are planned in advance and the employees are given instructions (mostly in writing) on the details of the task in question. Time for task completion is also embedded in the instructions. This provides the skillful worker in the various dockets to happily work as well as thrive in their work (Baxter & Poullaos, 2009). Leadership and management entail making decisions. Making decisions compels making choices or series of choices depending on the problems that have been identified. These problems are then evaluated and possible solutions are embedded to them. The process of identifying and evaluating decisions in organizations is synonymous with the science of management. It has significant influence of theories and research finding on decision making (Roberts, 1984). Human relation theory Brady & Phemister (2012) give detailed description on the importance and role of human perspective in organizational management. They categorize these perspectives into three: human-relation movement; human-resource; and human behavioral science approach. Human relation movement emanates from the school of thought that human being should not operate from strict rules that mistreat their well being. The output of employees is perceived to be high when they are treated well by the management. This has stimulated interest of organizations in focusing on the positive treatment and well being of the employees besides the production and performance of the company (Brady & Phemister, 2012). Human resource perspective the workers are given room to express their full potential while discharging their duties. Daily activities are well planned and the management ensures that work given does not in any way demean dehumanize the employer. There are two assumptions in this approach. The first illuminates that humans inherently dislike work and that majority work best under pressure. They prefer being pushed or directed to take responsibility. The other assumption stipulates that average person learns under proper conditions to take responsibility and that threat both internally generated or externally are not are not the only channels that can be employed to bring out the best out of employees in organization’s objectives. Few companies use the first assumption. The second assumption is preferred as it enables firms to tap in and nurture creativity and mind power of the workers (Brady & Phemister, 2012). Finally, in human behavioral science approach, the employers aim to tap in individuals with high intrapersonal skills. The ability of an employee to communicate effectively and relate with other amicable in all aspects of life is highly regarded (Stephen, 2012). Formal rationalization and scientific management As described above form formal rationalization entails replacing those traditional ways or behavior and incorporation the current rationally in a calculated aspect. Well in the scientific management the tasks are planned in advance and designed rationally with the intention of fully maximizing the potential of workers (Stephen, 2012). For this reason it relates well with formal rationalization since there is quantitative aspects in terms of production. Moreover the quantitative aspects are rationally formal. Bureaucratic dominance is a characteristic associated with formal rationalization. Bureaucratic structures are well stipulated and in the society today they have been in most cases legitimized. On the other hand, in the science of management there is existence of hierarchical structures thus enforcing the concept of structured dominance. The rational aspect comes from the fact that those workers in this type of management are promoted according to their levels of qualifications. Moreover, there is division of labor in the management with the management acting as the overseer (Hodgetts & Hegar, 2008). Formal rationalization and human relation theories The human relation movement upholds human being freedom of expression and protects workers from mistreatment from the organization. This contradicts with the concept of formal rationalization of the existence of domination structures that are legitimized. As much as in the relation theory there are structures, domination by those in higher structure that impact negatively to those in lower structure is perceived to correlate negatively with the expected performance of the organization. In fact, it marries with the idea the rational idea that incase domination structures aren’t legitimatized then the need to coerce is brought into play (Hodgetts, & Hegar, 2008). Substantive rationalization and Scientific Management Scientific management is rationally substantive if orders or action towards finding solutions to problems do not prove difficult or there is inability to pursue them. In addition, substantive rationality does not entirely encourage postulations based on quantitative aspect of outcome of actions unlike the science of management where actions taken by the management of the organizations are channeled toward not only increasing the productivity of the firm but also the value of all the shareholders (those who have some share of claims in the company). For this reason, it can be concluded that scientific management is more lenient to formal rationality as compared to substantive rationality (Stephen, 2012). Substantive rationalization and human relations theory The tendency portrayed in all the perspectives of human relation theory (human movement, human resource and human behavioral scientific approach) is that of being rational to humanity with the aim of motivating them to increase their output in a more natural manner. Though there is a quantitative relation to the expected outcomes, the substantive rationality to on the beliefs and values to humanity is upheld (Hodgetts & Hegar, 2008). Conclusion Success of organizations has followed certain trends of management as well as rationality from time immemorial. The dynamics and increasing trends in the society have increased the desire in organizations to conform and readjust. This has provided and will continue providing scholars the mandate to study aspects of change in these organizations in relation to human perspective. Reference list Adler, P. S. (2009). The Oxford handbook of sociology and organization studies: Classical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Print Appelrouth, S., & Edles, L. D. (2008). Classical and contemporary sociological theory: Text and readings. Los Angeles, Calif: Pine Forge Press. Print Baxter, J., & Poullaos, C. (2009). Practices, profession and pedagogy in accounting: Essays in honour of Bill Birkett. Sydney, N.S.W: Sydney University Press. Brady, E., & Phemister, P. (2012). Human-environment relations: Transformative values in theory and practice. Dordrecht: Springer. Print Hodgetts, R. M., & Hegar, K. W. (2008). Modern human relations at work. Mason, OH: Thomson/Southwestern. Print Khurana, A. (2009). Scientific management: A management idea to reach a mass audience. New Delhi: Global India Pub. Print Roberts (1984). The Moral Character of Management Practice. Journal of management studies, 21,3: 290-301. Stephen, P (2012). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Print Read More