Rationality of Organizations - Essay Example

Rationality of Organizations Rationality of Organizations Introduction Rationality in organizations is the aspect where all individual and organizational behaviour is centred on attaining the goals and objectives of the organization as set by the management. The concept of rationality in organizations was first developed by Herbert A. Simon who was an eminent social scientist of the last century. While examining organizations as rational systems, Simon examines this aspect both in terms of organizational and individual behaviour. In the first instance, Simon uses the term rationality as the same as efficiency and this means that it is a simulated alternative word for rationality. Given this explanation, organizational rationality is therefore comprehended as identical with the economic efficiency of the managerial unit itself. However, efficiency is also a central organizational requirement for individuals as well as administration (Hertz & Livingston, 2006). This paper tries to prove that organizations are indeed rational systems. Closely tied on the organizational rational is the comprehension of how the structure of authority in organization controls or is affected by individual decisions as well as examining how administrative rationality meet the criteria of limited or bounded rationality. In the discussion of any type of political or organizational theory, in the past the main consideration was accorded to the place of authority both within and outside the organization. Business experts believe that exercising authority in organizations is only possible in the event that an individual allow their decisions to be influenced by decision principles offered to him by a different individual. In addition, this logic of organizational rationality, this authority is evidently that of organizational management (Sapru, 2008). From the above statement, what comes out clearly is that individuals are not capable of influencing their own decisions out of their own free will, but instead, the management is deliberately responsible for moulding this behaviour. For example, the goal recognition of a worker is a product of the placement of the individual within the organization since being a member of an organization changes the person’s behaviour by changing the original premises that characterize his or her choices and verdicts. Employees are therefore expected to match their behaviour with the organizational goals and objectives. An individual decision can therefore be said to be organizationally rational in the event that it is founded on the organization’s goals. However, this creates a psychological environment where members must acclimatize to managerial goals irrespective of their own psychological needs (Dobbin, 2012). In any organization, members engage in rational behaviour only to the level that the effects of action can be calculated and evaluated. Following this observation, an economic man is therefore the one who is essentially firmed in global rationality. This economic man has significant knowledge of the environment around him and also has a well-defined system of preferences, and can pursue alternative means of action. Global rational simply gives the economic man an opportunity to maximize his preference (Perrow, 2001). On the contrast, the administrative or organizational man is also considered to be rational but only in a narrow context. The concept of intended and restricted rationality is accepted as the essence of human behaviour of those who satisfice simply because they don’t have the ability to maximize. By satisficing, the organized individual is believed to look for a means to act that suits his needs. In addition to this, satisficing decisions are not only bound to an individual worker but they incorporate the management as well (Perrow, 2001). In order to understand whether the organization is rational or not, it is first important to understand the means through which this rationality takes place. Even in the instance where attention is offered to partial rationality or international rationality, the two of them are cognitive rationality processes. In essence, both of them are representative of a purposive, influential, or calculative form of interpretation and this is the form of analysis that has been systematically and coherently been analysed by Max Weber and others in the better part of the last century. In organizations, analysis and problem solving are seen as cognitive processes where thought is believed to take pre-eminence over the social experience of an employee. This means that the thought of man is conformed to match the means to an end that is set by the management (Leonard, Brooks, & Dunn, 2009). Over the years, there have been various critics who have risen to question the rationality theory as proposed by Simon. In his opinion, Simon pointed out that efficiency (rationality) is the other term for good administration. He also pointed out that efficiency must be a guiding principle for all organizations. In addition to this, this efficiency was previously considered to be focused on the rationality of organizational or administrative management (Vaughan, 2012). Loosely translated, this is an efficiency that affects every member of the organization as far as these members are responsive to the management stimulus set up by the administration. For this reason, the basic concern for efficient operations serves substantively to set the boundaries for the nature of politics that happens on day to day basis in the workplace (Leonard, Brooks, & Dunn, 2009). While the organizational perspective of rationality proposed by Simon does not necessarily adhere to the conventional politics/administration dichotomy, he concentration on efficiency as a roadmap of organizations act as a factor that is capable of eliminating the moral-political reasoning as well as the factoring of substitute values. This means that rationality is supreme since it relegates other concerns such as democracy, justice, as well as equality to secondary position. Other formulas cannot compete where the pre-eminence of efficiency as rationality is prevalent in organizations. However, there are those people who point out that in the event that efficiency takes a central place, then it does not compete against other concerns such as personal responsibility or democratic morality. This view has however not been supported by academicians and it therefore does little in dispelling the notion that rationality is supreme in organizations (Daft, & Armstrong, 2009). Authority in Organizations One topic that is inevitable and crucial in the discussion of rationality in organizations is concept of authority. Employees in an organization are seen as explicitly and institutionalized individuals who let their own decisions to be influenced by the decision principles of others. In this context, “others” is specifically used to refer to the concept of management. Over the years, researchers have repeatedly pointed out that this rational objective contains a wider implication that just the harmonization of various operations for a prearranged end. Actually, its main goal is to develop a special environment which will compel an employee to make the most suitable decision, a decision that is ideal to the wishes and ends of the organization. In organizations, authority is discussed in the basis of the ability to command subordinates. In most cases, organizations do not have a forum where they can use to reach consensus on certain things but instead what is implemented is what is developed by the superiors. There is therefore a certain quality about authority and its existence is seen wherever a junior accepts the decision of the superior while shelving their own critical abilities. This effectively prevents the subordinate from participation and belonging within the organization (Daft, & Armstrong, 2009). In rational organizations, the decisions that any member makes are based on his position in the official chain of command. This leaves very little or no room for individual opinion. Theoretically, if a manager orders the individuals in the sales department to concentrate on pushing sales for a certain model of car that is not popular but pays the same amount of commission as the more popular car, then the salespeople have no choice but to concentrate on ensuring that the less popular model is sold. Ideally, most sales people will find it difficult to work harder and still make the same amount of money irrespective of what they are told by the management to do. This means that not every individual in an organization will work rationally even in the most favourite circumstances. In the event that two workers don’t like each other in the same department, they can render a department inoperable even in organizations with the well-structured strategies; however, this does not mean or imply that such an organization does not operate rationally. In the event that a business owner is able to define what they want to accomplish with a certain line of action, what the substitute choices are, and what the possible outcomes are, it is possible to circumvent workplace politics and simply depend on the formal structure of the organization to ensure that his/her orders are met (Bass, 2000). The Rational Organization For a business owner, the possible application of rational organization theory is the simplicity of seeing the company as a rational system. An example of such rationality can be seen as the case where any car dealership company is primarily on making profits through the selling of cars. Each employee of such an organization has a well spelled role in this process. The sales people are tasked with meeting the clients and selling the cars to them while management is responsible for instructing, inspiring and overseeing the sales people. In reality, the individual behaviour of the people who work for such an organization arte not important since each one of them has an assigned role in the organization and they are only supposed to play out their role in the correct manner (Dobbin, 2004). As discussed earlier, although nearly every organization is rational, sometimes politics take a centre stage. However, such organizations where the goals and job titles are not listed are very rare and therefore it would be safe to conclude that most organizations are rational. In a political organization, individual authority and people skills are superior to job titles. The thing that makes such type of an organization rare is because this can only happen in a scenario where various parts of the organization have totally conflicting objectives. An example of this is a scenario where the customer service department of an organization is concerned about ensuring that there is high customer satisfaction even if the sales turnover is reduced while on the other hand the sales people have a totally opposite goal. In order to manage these two departments in an effective manner, the manager has a responsibility of striking a balance between the opposing goals of the two units (Dobbin, 2004). The Modern Organization There is no denying that modern organizations differ from that of the past. This is because unlike in the past, modern societies are organizational societies. According to sociologists, organizations are social units or simply human groups that are intentionally established to pursue specific goals. In order to meet the high level of competition, today’s organizations are characterized by specialization, authority as well as communication responsibilities. In most cases, modern organizations have a central power of authority which is tasked with checking the overall efforts of the entire organization then channelling them into one direction to achieve a certain objective (Greiner, 2008). Employees of a particular organization are not supposed to demonstrate their complete range of behaviour but only that are critical or important to the needs of the organization in which they serve. In addition to this, nearly all organizations expect their employees to function according to the roles that have been assigned to them and not according to their individual wishes. In order to fulfil the set objective of the company, individuals are supposed to adopt only the behaviour that enables them to fulfil this objective. Individuals in this current organization exercise power over each other in the form of authority and hierarchical control (Greiner, 2008). Although there are still organizations that use the political system of operation, most organizations use the rational systems perspective where the organization is seen as the central system. Even when it comes to rewarding the efforts of the employees, individuals are rewarded based on whether they have put the goals of the organization above their own. Following this line of thought, an organizational goal is seen as a specific characteristic of a stable state that the organization endeavours to achieve. For the attainment of this goal to be possible, organizations set in place effective and efficient goals that it makes it possible to fulfil their objectives. Efficiency, which is an important management tool, is therefore used as a synonym for rationality in organizations (Kendall, Jane, & Rick, 2004). Due to the changing nature of business environment that organizations operate in, the business goals keep on transforming. Apart from the wider organizational goals, there are other specific goals that a business has and this are what each employee is expected to strive to achieve. When business goals change, the employees are expected to change their mode of operation to factor in the new goals. This means that employees are slaves to the goals and objectives of the organization that they work for and at no time are they allowed operating or thinking in a manner that is not consistent with that of their organization. Since each organization has a set authority, the employees are only expected to obey and act according to this authority (Kendall, Jane, & Rick, 2004). Conclusion The answer to the question whether organizations are rational or not is rather challenging. However, a careful analysis of this question shows that all modern organizations are rational since they all seek to fulfil a certain goal. This means that employees are rarely allowed to apply their own behaviour in the workplace other than that which is necessary to fulfilling the objectives of the organization. In nearly all the organizations, there is a set order of authority and this is what the individuals are allowed to adhere to regardless of their own opinions. This analogy only proves that nearly all organizations are indeed rational. References Bass, B. (2000). Leader March, a Handbook of Leadership. New York: The Free Press. Daft, R. & Armstrong, A. (2009). Organization Theory and Design. Toronto:Nelson. Dobbin, F. (2004). Cultural Models of Organization: The Social Construction of Rational Organizing Principles. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Dobbin, F (2012). The Rise of Bureaucracy. Harvard Hall, Cambridge. Greiner, L. (2008). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review 9 (14): 1025-1056. Hertz, D. and R. Livingston. (2006). Contemporary Organizational theory: A review of current concepts and methods. Human Relations, 3 (4), 373-394. Kendall, D., Jane, L., & Rick, L. (2004). Sociology in Our Times. Tennessee: Nelson Education Ltd. Leonard, J. Brooks, & Dunn, P. (2009). Business & Professional Ethics for Directors, Executives & Accountants. Stamford: Cengage Learning.  Perrow, C. (2001). A Society of Organizations. Theory and Society. 6 20: 725–762. Sapru, R. (2008). Administrative Theories and Management Thought. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited. Vaughan, D. (2012). The Trickle-Down Effect: Policy Decisions, Risky Work, and the Challenger Effect. California Management Review 6 (12): 259-272. Read More