Organization Research and Theory - Essay Example

ORGANIZATION RESEARCH AND THEORY Answers to the questions …………………. College/ ………….. …………. Q1: What is the relationship among organizational theory, organizational design and change, and organizational structure and culture? Discuss in detail. Organizational Theory Organizations, regardless of business or non-business, comprise of people, process and technology. The success of an organization largely depends on effective managing, coordination and control of people, process and technology and other significant organizational factors. Organizational theory has long been a fundamental basis for understanding, explaining and predicting the functioning of an organization or the behaviour of its people, in order to enhance maximum resource utilization and greater effectiveness to ensure business success. Organizational theory explains the relationship between various organizational factors, based on cause and its effect. Organizational theories illustrate underlying causes of effects that are observed in an organization and it shows which specific effects might be caused by certain circumstance (Daub, 2009, p. 83). Organizational theory has evolved to provide a framework for understanding complex situations in an organization. Various organizational theories like bureaucracy theory developed by Weber, system theory and chaos theory can provide with insights in to the values of studying and depending on organizational theories (Tosi and Mero, 2003, p. 12). Organizational theory interrelates with organizational culture, structure, design and change because organizational theory explains how an organization will be structured, how its culture will be looking like, how it will be designed and how it responds to changes. Various organizational theories like those mentioned above describe how an organization will be structured and designed to operate more effectively to achieve its common and specific objectives in more rational and acceptable ways. Organizational design and change Organizational design is a process that managers in a firm select and manage aspects of organizational culture and structure in order to help the firm control those activities that are necessary to achieve its goals. An organization’s behavioural patterns will largely be affected by its design and the principles behind its operation (Jones, 2004, p. 10). As Heijden, Bono and Jones (2008) noted, organizational design, also termed as organizational architecture, refers to formal reporting relationships, procedures and controls in a firm. They viewed it as the anatomy of the organization because it provides a very basic foundation within which the organization functions (p. 78). Organizational change is the process that an organization moves from its present state to some desired future state for various purposes like increasing their operational effectives, achieving higher competitiveness etc. As Jones (2004) stressed, organizational change is to find newer ways of using resources and capabilities to increase the capabilities of an organization to create its values (p. 10). Exploring in to organizational change and designs help management and others understand how to respond to various organizational factors and how to bring considerable positive outcomes to the firm. The organizational and design are closely interrelated. organizational change is often termed as an organizational re-design which shows how related are design and change in relation to an organization’s activities. Both organizational design and change are carried out with an ultimate goal to create values and convert these values for achieving its desired goals. When an organization continues to grow, it goes through various steps of changes and re-designs. Organizational structure and Culture Organizational culture, according to Jones (2004) is a set of shared values and norms that monitor and control the interactions of members of an organization with each other and with various stakeholders like suppliers, customer etc (p. 11). Ethics in an organization, the rights given to the people and the structure used in the organization are largely influencing its culture. It also defines how job and other tasks are formally divided, grouped and coordinated among its people. Newstrom and Davis (2004) stated that the structure of an organization defines formal relationship and use of people within it. Various levels of people involving in different tasks like managing, accounting, supervising and assembling are required to be related in a very structural way so each of their work can be effectively performed (p. 6). Organizational culture and its structure are also closely interrelated. As Kirst-Ashman and Hull (2008) pointed, organizational culture involves many facets like what specific types of attire are considered appropriate and how they are structured in relation to its culture (p. 142). According to Jones (2004), organizational structure is a formal system of relationship between tasks and authority and a specific structure relation among them that control how people coordinate various actions to reach the ultimate organizational goals (p. 9). It can be found that both culture and structure control interactions, activities and functions of members in an organization. In short, organizational theory, design and change and culture and structure are closely interrelated, as theory is set of rules and norms about an organization’s different aspects in relation to its design, change process, culture and its structure. Q2: What are the major sources of uncertainty in the environment? Discuss how these sources of uncertainty affect a small biotechnology company and a large carmaker. Uncertainty is one of major challenges for smooth functioning of an organization. Uncertainty is aligned with discomfort with risk and ambiguity which causes distractions in effective operation of a business, and therefore many organizations take extreme care to avoid uncertainty or eliminate its risks. There are various different types of sources of uncertainty like internal and external to the firm. Different people in an organization understand organizational goals differently and that cause uncertainty. Internal sources of uncertainty include perceptual process and imperfections in understanding the relationships, whereas external sources include social composition of the work force like demographic change etc (Northcraft, Stroh and Neale, 2002, p. 32). Jones (2004) identified and described three major sources of uncertainty; they are 1) environment complexity, 2) Environmental dynamism and 3) environmental richness. These sources are detailed below: Environment complexity Environment complexity refers that the environment of working or organizational functioning will be more complex when there greater numbers and huge differences between the function of the strength, number and interconnectedness of specific and general forces to be managed in an organization (Jones, 2004, p. 66). Buelens, Kreitner and Kinicki (2002) found that successful organizations may show relatively higher degrees of both integration and differentiation as and when environmental complexity increases (p. 523). A very simple example is that when a firm deals with relatively large number of firms like purchasing form many suppliers, the complexity in its environment will more likely to increase. This was a reason why Ford reduced its dealing with suppliers of 3000 in to less than 500. When such environmental complexity increases, the formation to be gathered, the data to be managed and the cannels of activities to be controlled become quite complicated and this causes uncertainty in its operation. Environmental Dynamism The size and pace of general changes in organizational environment will influence the level of uncertainty. Environmental dynamism, as Jones (2004) detailed, is a function of how much and how quickly some specific forces in the changes in organizational environment cause uncertainty (p. 67). When an organization experiences difficulties or instabilities from various forces of resources supply and other things, it can be said to be experiencing environmental dynamism. In such situation, the organization may not be able to predict how its changes will likely to occur in future. In networking and digital industry, the technology makes tremendous changes and this causes uncertainty for a business which depends on such technology. Environmental Richness When organization is rich in its resources and availability of essential factors, the organization is less likely to face uncertainty. Environment richness is the function of the resources that an organization is able to get to support its requirements. Some organizations will be very rich in its accessibility to qualified professionals or to get appropriate materials for its production process. When it experiences lack of such resources, the uncertainty will be likely to increase (Jones, 2004, p. 68). As Jones (2004) pointed, the environment richness will largely be influenced by the location and competition, because in a poor country or an area where resources are relatively scarce, the uncertainty will be more. Similarly, when there are high competition, one organization’s access to resources will also be affected and therefore uncertainty will be more. Biotechnology firm and uncertainty A biotechnology firm certainly requires efficient and qualified professionals of scientists and experts in technology-handling. A biotechnology firm is thus very likely to experience uncertainty caused by Environment richness, because the availability of experts and scientists are highly critical to that firm. if it operates in an area where it is very difficult to find appropriate scientists, the firm will be facing relatively high level of uncertainty. Carmaker and source of uncertainty A car manufacturer requires large number of very different parts and therefore it depends on various suppliers. How many more number of suppliers it depends for automotives, the risk of uncertainty will be more. A car-manufacturer is thus very likely to experience uncertainty causes by environment complexity. Q3: Under what conditions is an organization likely to prefer (a) a mechanistic structure, (b) an organic structure or (c) elements of both? British scientists Tom Burns and G M Stalker introduced the concepts of mechanistic and organic organizational structure by giving clear distinction between them (Buelens, Kreitner and Kinicki, 2002, p. 523). Mechanistic organizations Mechanic organizations are rigid bureaucracies that follow strict rules, narrowly defined tasks and a very systematic top-to-down communication (Buelens, Kreitner and Kinicki, 2002, p. 523). These types of organizations fit the traditional hierarchical ways of organizing as people are specialized and specific activities are assigned to them. Each top level has more power and influence on to its next level. These organizations follow a scheduled work tasks, very certain rules, clearly defined work-ethics and very formal communication (Newstrom and Davis, 2004, p. 315). McShane and Glinow (2004) gave an example of McDonald for an organization with mechanical structure (p. 453). The mechanistic organization will be structured in a way that each function at organizational level will be spate and someone will be responsible for communication and inter-relation between various functions. An organization will prefer mechanistic structure for the following conditions: 1- Employees in the organization function separately and specialize in a clearly defined task or work centre. 2- There is a clear structured and defined hierarchy of the authority and a well-defined integration mechanism also is there. 3- The communication is of vertical type and authority to control managerial tasks are kept at the top level of the organization, and 4- The work process is predictable and there is extensive use for rules (Jones, 2004, p. 115).. Organic Organizations Organic structure of organization is just opposite to Mechanistic structure. Organic structure provides flexibility that people will be able to initiate change and they are easily adoptable to any changing conditions (Jones, 2004, p. 116). In an organic structured organization, decision-making authority will be distributed through the hierarchy. People in the organization perform their tasks with quite flexibility, as roles are not strictly defined. Organic organizations are open-type and flexible-structured, because people are able to adjust themselves to situational requirements. In such an organization, communication will be multi-directional. Decision making is decentralized and is shared among several levels or different functions (Newstrom and Davis, 2004, p. 315). An organization will prefer organic structure for the following conditions: 1- When employees in the organization work together coordinate their actions to find a better way for performing the job being assigned to them. 2- When the organization focuses on major task forces and teams for integrating mechanism. 3- When the authority for controlling the tasks is delegated to people at various levels in the organization, and the communication is lateral. 4- There is mutual adjustment in the organization as it uses face-to face contacts extensively to coordinate its duties and the work process is relatively unpredictable (Jones, 2004, p. 115). References Buelens, R, Kreitner, A and Kinicki, M, (2002), Organizational Behaviour, Second European Edition, McGraw Hill Companies Daub, M, (2009), Coordination of Service Offshoring Subsidiaries in Multinational Corporations, Gabler Verlag Heijden, B.V.D, Bono, S. D and Jones, S (2008), Leadership, Change and Responsibility, Illustrated edition, Meyer & Meyer Verlag Jones, G. R (2004), Organizational Theory, Design, and Change: Text and Cases, Fourth edition, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education Inc Kirst-Ashman, K.K and Hull, G.H (2008), Generalist Practice with Organizations and Communities, Illustrated edition, Cengage Learning McShane, S. L and Glinow, M. A.V (2004), Organizational behavior: emerging realities for the workplace revolution, Third edition, McGraw Hill Irwin Newstrom, J. W and Davis, K (2004), Organizational Behaviour, Human Behaviour at Work, Eleventh edition, The McGraw Hill Companies Northcraft, Stroh, L.K and Neale, M.A, (2002), Organizational Behavior: A Management Challenge, Third revised edition, Routledge Tosi, H.L and Mero, N.P (2003), The fundamentals of organizational behavior: what managers need to know, Illustrated edition, Wiley-Blackwell Read More