Organization Theory Synthesis - Term Paper Example

Organization Theory Synthesis Paper Organizations are formed for the sole purpose of achieving a specific set of objectives. They are thus designed in a way that would enable them accomplish those objectives that they intended to achieve. The correct organizational design is very important for the achievement of organizational objectives as a design that is not supportive of the business operations will not accomplish the set out goals. In these systems, there are a number of functional units that work together to ensure that organizations accomplish business objectives. As a system, they must work together in order to realize any meaningful progress. As such, a culture must exist within the organization that is supportive of the business as well as considerate of the external influences to the business. All these sum up the nature of organizational theory, and thus the complexity that it presents makes it difficult to understand. In a world marked with stiff competition, organization theory becomes important as it is the core of business operations, supporting and guiding businesses to achieve operational efficiency as well as achieve organizational objectives. The nature of management is described in its ability to get people to work together in order to accomplish specific goals and objectives through the use of resources to achieve efficiency and effectiveness. The basic principle in management is the ability to guide people through processes within the organization in order to achieve specific goals (Adair, 2007). Scholars argue that people are what make an organization and thus it is impossible to talk about organizations without looking at people. To manage these people and resources therefore requires the ability to plan, control, organize, staff and lead in order to achieve efficiency (Anaeto, 2010). Over the years, a number of theories have been advanced on how to manage people. Classical theories emphasized that specifically designed formal structures and a consistent, rigid organizational network of employees are most important in having an organization running well and achieve its goals. Thus these theories looked at employees holding specific jobs and being guided on what to do. Independence on the part of the employee was very minimal. These theories do not worry about how people feel about the jobs but rather performance was quantifiable and paramount in operations. Such theories include scientific management theory proposed by Frederick Taylor (French, Rayner, Rees, & Rumbles, 2011). The shortcomings in these theories made scholars to come up with other theories that considered the human element of employees. These theories thus centered on people’s attitudes and motivations as the key to getting employees to work better. These theories argued that employees who are satisfied with their jobs feel indebted to their employers and will show appreciation by being more productive. Such is the basis for Theory X and Y that shows the transition from the scientific management to the human aspect of management (Crispen Chipunza, 2011). Managing people and resources thus requires the implementation of a specific organization design that will support the systems and processes in place. Top managers are those that are able to effectively design a structure for their organization that supports the effective utilization of available resources both material and human capital. Literature identifies formal and informal organizational design models that managers use in their daily management of organizations (Jack, LaFrance, & Ginter, 2003). The most appropriate model is one that leads to the achievement of organizational objectives. Loveridge & Cummings (1996) identify five models of organizational structure and these include: functional, bureaucratic, matrix, shared governance and self-directed work teams. The scholars argue that these models may not work for all organizations. However, the most important thing is to identify exactly what the organization does and choose the most appropriate model to manage the people and resources. A bureaucratic model may be good for organizations with many processes and a variety of people to handle (Jung, 2001). It may not be suitable for small organizations with limited processes. The latter may require a more collaborative approach to effectively achieve organizational outcomes. However, some of these models do not work bringing to mind the contingency approach to managing organizations. Contingency theory argues that each and every element in the organization is dependent on another within the organization and therefore there is no perfect way that tasks, processes and goals can be achieved (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). Each organization is unique and the best way to accomplish objectives is to make individual determinations in view of the goal’s context. This theory thus does not see any model as appropriate because of the uniqueness of organizations and the varied nature of employees and thus standard principles are seen not to apply in this context. Organizations operate as systems involving people and processes. The system theory emphasizes how all parts of the organization in the form of subsystems are interrelated. The subsystems work together to take input from the environment and produce some kind of output in the form of products or services. Scholars argue that an organization is more than the sum of its constituent parts. It is an intricate mechanism where its parts work collectively to process a product or to provide a service. Organizations as systems also take into consideration the external environment and the effect of other external systems on the operations of the business (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2006). Kirst-Ashman & Hull (2010)argue that organizations have to constantly assess themselves and the external environment and adjust in order that the system remains functional. Thus, an organization operates with its constituent units which may be departments or teams depending on the organization structure adopted. These must cooperate and work together for the purpose of achieving organizational efficiency. On the other hand the business together with its subsystems has to consider external forces for example competitors and the government in its operation (Leka, Griffins, & Cox, 2003). The lack of this consideration makes the organization fail to operate effectively in the given environment. This brings to mind the aspect of stakeholders that are important for the organization. The effective management of both internal and external stakeholders which constitute the system leads to greater operational efficiency and effectiveness for the organization (Loveridge & Cummings, 1996). Change is inevitable in organizations and as work processes go on, people are bound to move and systems are bound to be changed within the organization. However, whenever change is eminent people usually want to resist the change because of the uncertainty it brings and the need to maintain status quo (Martin & Fellenz, 2010). When organizations grow, they come up with cultures that are different depending on the operations of the organization and what the organization intends to achieve. A review of organizational culture literature brings to the forefront that: culture is essential for both successful organizational change and maximizing the value of human capital; culture management should become a critical management competency and lastly the right organizational culture is a condition that is necessary for organizational success (Warner, 2010). A number of practices are being used by organizations and their management in managing cultures (McGinnis, 2005). However, not all these approaches to managing culture are effective in their approach to deal with change in organizations. Scholars have identified several ways to effect change n cultural environments. Cultural change is not easy to achieve; it is very difficult, complicated, demanding effort that could take a number of years to accomplish (Mellahi, Jackson, & Sparks, 2002). Businesses use revolutionary approaches to change cultures and these takes place across the entire organization. The second approach is the gradual or incremental approach which is used to achieve slow but systematic approach to culture change through a comprehensive reshaping of the entire organizational culture. (Miner, 2007) The third approach is changing specific subcultures within the organization in order to achieve a common culture. Scholars argue that this is not a simple process and these methods do not fit all the organizations. These approaches fail because the efforts are not usually sustained and thus people end up going back to the initial culture in the organization. Effecting change in cultural environments thus requires a planned and systematic approach that takes into consideration both the internal and the external environment. People must be aware of why the change is required (Mullins, 2005). The change agent must not impose the new culture but motivate people to adopt the new culture themselves so that it becomes part of them (O'Sullivan, 2010). The functional structure of the business is composed of a number of sections or departments that support its overall business strategy. The functional structure may divide the business into a number of units or departments which work collaboratively to achieve the objectives of the organization. The structure is built on the basis of the business strategy used in running the organization. An organizations structure specifies how the work is supposed to be done and how to do it in relation to the organization’s strategy. There exist organizational controls that guide the use of strategy, indicating how to compare actual and expected results and suggest actions to be taken to improve performance in case it falls below expectations (O'Sullivan, 2010). A good match between the organizations structure and strategy can lead to a competitive advantage. Thus strategy and structure have a reciprocal relationship. One is thus dependent on the other. However, strategy has a stronger influence on structure (Pearce, 2011). A functional structure is used to implement business level strategies and includes the chief executive officer, limited corporate staff and functional line managers who are present in dormant organizational departments. The functional structure is concerned with processes and thus its interaction with various stakeholders is something is quite easy as compared to other structures. Dealing with competitors requires a strategy that is clear and distinguishes the company from the activities of others in the market. This is done through a strategy that may have a basis on innovation, research and development (Roussel, Swansburg, & Swansburg, 2006). Thus competitors are easily handled from the different functional areas of the organization. All the departments or the functional units of the organization require funding which must be made in order to carry out operations. A cost reduction strategy ensures that the company is able to operate the departments and at the same time able to deliver results to its shareholders. Thus its interaction with financials is based on the specific strategy enacted by the organization. The regulatory environment on the other hand requires that organization is able to abide by all laws that govern business operations. The overall functional strategy becomes important because each of the departments can easily ensure that they are abiding by the said regulations to avoid conflict within the industry. It is easier with this structure because individualized units can deal with specific cases that arise that demand attention and thus little time is wasted for the organization in trying to solve a problem (Tourish & Hargie, 2004). Organizations that take the functional approach all have units which are developed in line with the organizational strategy adopted. The units then develop a culture within themselves that supports their operation. This type of culture within another culture is known as a subculture. The organizational subculture exits within the larger organizational culture and is very important in the achievement of the department’s goals and objectives (Anaeto, 2010). The marketing department for example is a department on its own in the organization. However, to achieve its objectives it has to develop a culture within the larger organizational culture to achieve its intended objectives. Therefore the department may opt to encourage collective working or working as teams in order to achieve the marketing goals of the company. In so doing the department comes up with its values, symbols and norms that guide its members in their daily interaction with each other. These norms, values and symbols must be in line with the large organizational values in order to avoid conflict within the organization (Tourish & Hargie, 2004). As a department, it thus builds on these principles and works through them to help them achieve their mission. Thus each of the organizational units has its own culture that is usually built around its objectives and mission. These thus guide the department in ensuring not only the success of the department but also the success of the business. Scholars argue that the development of subcultures within the organization could be detrimental to the success of the larger organizational objectives. They argue that of paramount importance is the larger organizational culture that should be well nurtured in order to achieve greater organizational objectives. However, where departments or units are distinct in terms of operations, a good departmental culture that is built around trust and group norms can be good at ensuring the attainment of the units’ goals and objectives (West, 2004). Effective leadership in organizations is something that scholars in the field of organizational behavior have studied for a long period of time. Effective leadership is what differentiates one organization from the other. Effective leadership entails using both theory and general knowledge in guiding the company towards success. Poor leadership means that the people in leadership are not able to use business and management principles effectively to manage people and process in order to achieve results (ken-ichi, Mariko, & Yoichiro, 2000). This results in failure in the organization as objectives are not met. Effective leadership is about linking the business strategy to the goals and objectives of the organization and using resources effectively to ensure that the organization achieves its mission. Competent leaders are those that are able to observe the reality within their organizations and come up with strategies that are address the various problems within the organization. They are able to creatively come up with solutions to organizational problems and thus help the organizations achieve greater results (Roussel, Swansburg, & Swansburg, 2006). Researchers argue that leadership should be situational and this is because each and every moment and issue requires a given set of decisions that may not correspond with the others. This uniqueness in the problems and issues both with the employees and in the work processes demand that a situational approach be adopted rather than the conventional leadership styles (West, 2004). In conclusion organizational theory is complex and demanding as put forward by a number of scholars. A number of issues come into mind when looking at organizational theory. Management of people, resources, the structure and design of organizations, the culture in organizations, the different functional units of the organization as well as leadership, all these are part of organizational theory. The way an organization has structured itself together with the values it has set and the management it has put in place to guide people, will decide whether the organization achieves operational efficiency or not. The interactions of all these issues make the field of organizational theory complex and demanding to comprehend. References Adair, J. (2007). Leadership for Innovation: How to Organize Team Creativity and Harvest Ideas. London : Kegan Page. Anaeto, S. G. (2010). Managing Organizational Culture for effective Communication. The Social Sciences, 5(2): 70-75. Crispen Chipunza, T. M. (2011). Leadership Style, employee motivation and commitment: Empirical evidence from consolidated retail bank operating in a depressed economy. African Journal of Business Management, 5(20) 8337-8346. French, R., Rayner, C., Rees, G., & Rumbles, S. (2011). Organization Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Jack, D. W., LaFrance, K. G., & Ginter, P. M. (2003). Leadership and Decision making: A retrospective application and assessment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4):1. Jung, D. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2): 185-195. Ken-ichi, O., Mariko, S., & Yoichiro, H. (2000). Constructive conflict management in organizations: Resolution strategies, goal achievement and psychological changes after conflicts. Tohoku Psychologica Folia, 59(2000): 1-10. Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2006). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Skills and Practices. New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin . Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Key concepts, skills and best Practices. New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin Publishers. Leka, S., Griffins, A., & Cox, T. (2003). Work Organizations and Stress: systematic problem approaches for employees, managers and trade union representatives. London, UK: World Health Organization. Loveridge, C. E., & Cummings, S. H. (1996). Nursing Management in the new paradigm. London: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Martin, J., & Fellenz, M. (2010). Organizational Behavior and Management. New York: Cengage Learning. McGinnis, S. K. (2005). Organization behavior and Management Thinking. Retrieved May 05, 2012, from Jones and Barlet learning: http://www.jblearning.com/samples/076373473X/3473X_CH03_4759.pdf Mellahi, K., Jackson, P., & Sparks, L. (2002). An Exploratory Study into Failure in Successful organizations: The Case of Marks & Spencer. British Journal of Management, 13, 15-29. Milburn, T. W., Schuler, R. s., & Watman, K. H. (1983). Organizational Crisis. Part 1: Definition and conceptualization. Human Relations, 36:1141-1160. Miner, J. B. (2007). Organizational behavior: From theory to practice. New York: M. E Sharpe. Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and Organizational Behavior. New York: Prentice Hall/ Financial Times. Murphy, D. J., & Willmott, H. (2010). Organization Theory and Design. New York: Cengage Learning. O'Sullivan, K. (2010). Strategic intellectual management in multinational Organizations. Hershey, PA: Idea Group. Pearce, J. L. (2011). Status in Management and Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Philips, J., & Gully, S. M. (2011). Organizational behavior: Tools for Success. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Roussel, L., Swansburg, R. J., & Swansburg, R. C. (2006). Management and Leadership for Nurse Administrators. New York: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Singh, K. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Text and Cases. Dorling Kindersley: Pearson Education. Sullivan, E. J., & Decker, P. J. (2005). Effective leadership and management in nursing. New York: Prentice Hall. Tourish, D., & Hargie, O. (2004). Key Issues in organization communication. New York: Routledge. Warner, B. W. (2010). Organizational Change: Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publishers. West, M. A. (2004). Effective teamwork: practical lessons from organizational research . Malden, MA: BPS Blackwell. Willcoxson, L., & Millet, B. (2000). The Management of Organizational culture. Australian Journal of Management &Organizational behavior, 3(2):91-99. Read More