Understanding organizations - Essay Example

Understanding Organizations Compare and Contrast all five Paradigms Understanding an organization involve thorough understanding of organizational structures and behavior of its human resources as an individual and as various groups. Studying an organization is a complex process. Perceiving the nature and types of organization; power, interest groups and control; job design and teamwork; individual motivation; organizational culture is always a tricky job. Various ways of evaluating behavior of an organization have developed over time. This document deals with the different thinking processes used to define direction of an organization and its leadership. It compares and analyzes ways of thinking about organizations and the ways organizations are managed. Various approaches towards understanding organizations may be seen as different paradigms of thinking. According to Khn a paradigm is the set of values, or principles, that we use when we think. Classical Paradigm Classical paradigm is also known as rationalistic paradigm. According to Heijden's explanation of classical paradigm in this way of thinking "the organizational self-perception dictates that the organization is a rather stable entity engaged in a mechanistic relationship with the surrounding environment. This self-perception is not ignorant of change, but it is conceptualized as moving from one stable phase to another and this movement can be initiated through certain, focused actions within the organization" Classical approach towards understanding an organization assumes diagnosis as a primary objective in a rational change of organization. This approach is more objective. Changes within an organization are considered in quasi-stationary equilibrium state for the purpose of classical analysis. Classical paradigm relies on the method of self questioning. Various questions such as in which strategic direction organization is moving, how developed the organization culture is, how should it be and how it could be planned to develop culture in a satisfactory rhythm are raised to evaluate the organizations and strength of their leaders. There are some basic problems with classical approach. First is that, type of questionnaire gives an impression of static nature of an organization ignoring the dynamic nature and emergent scenarios that originations are facing today. This is a sensitive issue as nature of human resources is always core of an organization. Second difficulty is that answers of these questionnaires are derived generally by analysis of associated numbers and statistics which gives a sense of vogue. They seem far from reality as organization's culture can not be treated just like profit and losses. The third problem is that the questionnaire is aimed within the organization whereas the organizational changes can be engineered from outside of the organization also. Classical paradigm thus is effective to analyze only mechanical metaphor of organization. Classical paradigm is always paralyzed because of its rational world view. This paradigm clearly defines the goals of organization without much caring about the execution of plans. It does not emphasize much on outcome maximizing behaviors of organizations and its resources. Classical thinking process is centered on the board room of organization without much caring about business' ground reality. In this case a single entity determines the success or failure of strategy. Processual Paradigm Processual paradigm is also referred as scenario planning paradigm. This approach towards understanding organization is based on the probability theory. Organizations are evaluated according to fact available from their previous performances. Different patterns of organizational performance are the basic of future performance analysis. Processual paradigms can be applied to the phases of linear changes or stable periods ut this probabilistic approach has some basic inherent difficulties as there is no guarantee that the past facts will reflect on future performance of organization. It impairs the organization to deal with sudden and radical changes in the functioning environment of organization. In processual paradigm planning for future scenarios become a routine job it renders the organizations ill prepared for any sudden and adverse changes. Postmordernism Postmordernism is also referred as post-structuralism paradigm. Postmodernism connotes the idea that knowledge has become a commodity. With the "computerization of society" and the dominance of a mass-media, knowledge becomes fluid with the evolution of information systems and computerization of organizations knowledge base is the basic parameter to evaluate an organization. Postmodernism challenges and questions assumptions, rules, and way of thinking and paradigms traditionally used to evaluate an organization. It even contradicts the critical theory of managing organizations. Postmodernism search for loop holes in the ways organizations are managed. It is thought to a powerful thinking process but it is a non-defined, unclear and structure less process. Systemic Paradigm A system is set of interrelated and interacting entities. A systemic paradigm clearly defines the principles to analyse and structure an organization. This way of thinking is based on the concepts of systems and defines the intrigues of systemic philosophy. It employ syatem specific theories and method to understand the organizational behavior. In systemic approach to an organization each groups and individuals are appreciated for their individuality. Their efforts are synergized for effective organizational growth. Leaders who belong to systemic paradigm are always conscious and appreciative of individual contribution towards a common goal. Systemic paradigm emphasizes self-knowledge and interpersonal skills, as well as specific learning about the culture or characteristics of many different groups for a real evaluation of an organization. Evolutionary Paradigm Evolutionary paradigm allows a probabilistic approach to the certainties and focuses towards a specific purpose. It suggests creative ways to evaluate an organization and delves on mobilizing the brain power of its people and learns from their ideas. This paradigm is best suited for the evolving business scenarios as it suggests out-of-box thinking processes and encourages business leaders to evolve purpose and potential of the organizations. Business leaders with a bend of mind towards evolutionary system of thinking look at it as a primary purpose as regenerating the organization. Evolutionary analysis of an organization's behavior is not bound with any constraints. They rely on the evolving of new strategy to analyze the performance of organization and use unconventional ways to plan the future strategies. The evolutionary paradigm defines a strategy that is successful over time and is most effective in analyzing the organizations. It has a clear advantage over other thinking processes. References: 1. Argyris, C. & Schon, D. 1978, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading. 2. Pfeffer, J. 1982, Organisations and Organisation Theory, Pitman, Boston. 3. Crowther, D. & Green, M. (2004) Organisational theory. London: CIPD 4. Alvesson (1992): Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. C. (1992). Critical management studies. London: Sage. 5. Burrell: Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate life. London:Heinemann Read More