The advantages and disadvantages of rationalism - Essay Example

Introduction In the organisational context, rationalisation can be described as the reorganisation of a company with the intention of increasing itsefficacy; this can be done through a variety of ways. For one, the size of the organisation in question may be reduced, alternatively, there could be a change in policy or alteration of strategy concerning a given product or service. From a sociological point of view, rationalisation often denotes the replacing of traditional values as well as emotions as key motivators in society; instead people are expected to apply calculated and set goals with objective means and ends. Examples of such scenarios include the bureaucracy in government and to some extent in the private sector; decisions are made not according to the ideas of feelings of any one individual by through strictly following a set of pre-set rules. One of the main benefits of rationalisation is it facilitates efficiency in social organisations such that the people involved follow the rules which guide them in making the right decisions and by extension meet the goals of their society. Nevertheless, rationalisation has also been highly criticised, for one, it is seen as a force for dehumanisation of people in favour of rules organisational behaviours. In addition, the fact that rationalisation has been retrospectively dubbed as progress has been opposed on the basis of its tendency to move modernity away from the tenets of enlightenment. This paper is aimed at discussing the advantages and disadvantages of rationalism when applied in the context of organisational leadership by examining the various situations where it can be used with the intent of reducing cost taking to account the benefits and shortcomings that may arise. In the case of an organisation wishing to reduce its costs, one of the rational ways through which this could be done would be reducing the labour force. Should the owners of directors decide this is what needs to be done, it will be carried out without concern to how the employees who will lose their livelihoods. This is because from a rational perspective, the key is to eliminate excess staffs that are in this case dehumanised. However, despite this this shortcoming, with rationalism in practice organisations can reduce their employees and therefore save on the cost of labour costs. One of the major advantages of applying rationalism is that it allows management to make decisions based on a set of published rules and protocol, this tends to involve the quantification of experience work and skill resulting in a means end or goal oriented rationality which is used to determine the exact input in achieving a given goal. From a rational point of view a manager is likely to focus on either rewarding or punishing their employees through monetary increment or withdrawal depending on their fulfilment of objectives. When management is blinded with the drive to make profit, they may in their rationality principle of maximising if resort to irrational methods; and example of an extreme case is in the case of Nike which has recently been on the spotlight for overworking and underpaying employees in their Asian factories, even abusing their human and labour rights in their attempt to maximise profits (Boje 1998, p.462). This can be a very effective way of management since when employees are aware of the direct connection between laxity and a pay cut or handwork and a rise they are likely to be motivated to increase their effort. Nonetheless, this can be also be disadvantageous to the firm since it operates primarily on the basis that economic rewards are the most important form of motivation. This assumption prevents the organisation from pursuing other form of motivation such as giving their employees more autonomy or making them feels that their efforts are appreciated. Therefore, the motivation strategies applied from a rationalisation stand point may work in the short run but in the long run they may fail causing reduced productivity or high staff turnover and ultimately increasing the cost of production. Every organisation has a culture which can be described as the underlying shared assumptions and things that are mutually taken for granted by the staff in an organisation (Schein 2010, p.137). It is the duty of the leaders and/or managers to manage and develop the culture while at the same time creating enabling conditions for the staff to enjoy the benefits of the firm’s particular culture. Emphasises on business culture first came into the limelight in the 1980s (Smircich 1983, p.339), when it became a central them in business studies, it has remained an important element of study for business leadership and it is recognised as one of the driving forces behind many successful organisations. Through strengthening corporate culture, the performance of an organisation can be enhance by securing and strengthen the levels of commitment and flexibility for employees as well as their perception of value by their employer (Willmott 1993, p.515) From a rationalist lens, culture is simply a means to and ends as such; the culture or an organisation can be defined based on its variables which are subject to manipulation by management to achieve specific goals. To some extent, this can be advantageous to an organisation since by changing the cultural assumptions of the organisation, leadership can easily redirect the attention and efforts of their staff to new objectives. Notwithstanding, the down side is the fact that an organisation whose management can deign to manipulate culture for its own end essentially assumes that all the complex variables of culture are easily identified and can be altered with no outward effect. For example, Google’s corporate culture is characterised by an open working environment and a host of facilities such as gyms and restaurants for the staffs benefit. If the firm decides to cut costs by removing these aspects they may save costs in the short run but the consequent loss of motivation may offset these benefits because they would have been achieved at the extent of the culture that makes the firm successful in the first place. Contemporary society is growing rationalised at a rapid pace this is particularly evident in the level of bureaucracy in many of today’s organisations. Weber postulated that the ultimate form of rationalisation is bureaucracy, therefore, the most rational leaders business are wont to be bureaucrats and they use their power and position to promote the rational agenda in whichever field they may be in. In a given organisation, the leadership will be tasked with the maximisation of profit and a reduction of costs; this requires a means to and end rational calculation that is based on universally applicable rules. When leaders and managers are engaged in decision making, they are often required to apply formal rationality which is institutionalised in institutions such as large scale bureaucracies and capitalist economies. Therefore, the choice of the means to the end in question is determined by the structures and laws governing the overlying structures in the business environment. Leaders that apply rationality frequently make decisions that disregard the needs of their employees under the implication that substantive rationality is not important. A rationalist business leader is driven primarily by profits and they will therefore tend to ignore the humanity aspect of the business and focus on the competitive survival needs of the organisation. In turn the employees are exploited in a form of masterless slavery although leaders are wont to use any means to make them feel as if they are in control of their lives. These techniques involve promoting organisational cultures that are aimed at manipulating the employees into thinking they have a degree of autonomy since it may motivate them to be more committed to the organisation. From a humanistic point of view, leader’s rationalists and by extension bureaucratic leaders often end up inconveniencing and manipulating their staff as well as forcing them to go through myriad hoops with little regard for their convenience (King and Lawley 2012, p.100). Notwithstanding this, there are several advantages to this leadership technique, for one the rationalist leader who applies a bureaucratic technique will have a great deal of control over the activities of the organisation. Maanen and Barley (1984, p.80) propose that the greatest way a manager can acquire power and control over the organisation is by fragmenting the tasks in different parts which he can easily manage to micromanage. Through the numerous check and balances are put in place in a bureaucratic system, it is easy to manage organisational resources and funds and this will ultimately reduce wastage through duplication of tasks or misappropriation. At the end of the day, rationalism while it tends to dehumanise the employee and may reduce their motivation is nevertheless a very effective approach for managing organisational costs and ensuring that work is consistently and efficiently completed (Waterman and Peters 2004, p.45). When business manager apply such a rational system, they need to keep in mind that it can in many ways turn out to be irrational, and if not well managed instead of being effect and economical bureaucracies can have the opposite effect. This is because when mismanaged they tend to become ineffective and impractical as the rules use to make them rational can degenerate and turn into red tape. This makes them unpredictable and brings about ambiguities with employees not being aware of what they are supposed to do and clients not knowing what to expect. Furthermore, bureaucracies emphasise on quantifiability of work and this often puts employees under pressure to produce high quantities of work which may not be of very good quality so as to fill their quota. As it has been mentioned previously in this paper, the rationalist leader is primarily motivated by profit; as a result, they will prioritize anything that stands to increase the profits making and cost reducing elements of their organisation. Today, technological advances have facilitated the development of technologies that can be used to replace supplement or even replace human employees in the workplace. A rationalist leader given his means and end approach will use their power and influence as much as possible to take advantage of such technologies in the interests of cutting down on the cost of production (Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn 2011, p.231). This presents several advantages for the organisation, for one, for every worker they replace with a machine or system they stand to make considerable savings. In addition machines tend to be more effective and less prone to error and immune to subjectivity which makes them potentially more effective than humans in some activities. Conversely, despite these advantages, the rationalist approach to the man vs machine problem presents a set of challenges which in the long run may negate its initial benefits. The fact that some members of a team have been replaced with technology can have a negative impact on the rest of the staff, for one they will feel that their jobs are not secure and as a result they may start planning on how to exit the organisation in quest of more secure employment. The ensuing staff turnover rates will be likely to have a negative impact on the productivity of the organisation in question. Secondly, employees may react irrationally and express their disgruntlement for technology through sabotaging the technology or undercutting operations as a means of protest. Ultimately, a rationalist leader may have set out to create an efficient and cost saving system by replacing some of their staff with computers but the end result could turn out to be the opposite of his intentions as operations end up being irrational and spiral out of control. Conclusion At the end of the day, leadership and rationalism will no doubt continue to be applied alongside each other, however the degree to which they are used and the consequences depend on individual leaders and to some extent their staff. This paper does not seek to prove that rationalism as an approach through which costs can be reduced is necessarily wrong or right. Ultimately, how effective it is will be determined by the prevailing circumstances in the organisation as well as the way it will be managed and executed by the leadership concerned. References Boje, D, M., 1998. Nike, Greek goddess of victory or cruelty? Womens stories of Asian factory life. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 11 Issue 6 King, D and Lawley, S. 2012. Organizational behaviour. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Maanen, J and Barley, S, R. 1984. Occupational communities: culture and control on organizations. Journal of Research in Organisational behaviour. Schein, E, H. 2010. Organizational culture and leadership. New York. Jossey-Bass Pub Schermerhorn, J. R., Hunt, J. G., Osborn, R.N. 2011. Organizational behaviour .New York. Wiley Publishers Smircich, L., 1983. Concepts of culture and organizational analysis . Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, Organizational Culture. pp. 339-358 Waterman, R.H and Peters, T, J., 2004 In search of excellence: lessons from Americas best-run companies . New York. Harper Collins Publishers. Willmott, H., 1993. Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: managing culture in modern organizations. Journal of Management Studies 30:4 0022-2380 Read More