The Distinction between Formal Rationality and Substantive Rationality - Essay Example

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FORMAL RATIONALITY AND SUBSTANTIVE RATIONALITY AND THEIR APPLICATION TO SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN RELATIONS THEORY RATIONAL, BOTH, OR NEITHER. By (NAME) Course Professor University Date Introduction Rationalisation concepts are evidently recognised as a major theme in most of Max Weber’s studies. In description essays about rationalisation and rationality particularly on society and economy, Weber articulates four types of rationality. Two of them; formal rationality and substantive rationality are the focus in this paper. In general terms, Weber regarded the advancement and development of rational forms as one of the topmost and common features of growth in contemporary organisations (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis, 2011). In explaining these rational concepts and applications, Weber draws a distinction between the two rationalities based on their underlying characteristics. He recognised the importance of rationalisation based on how people approached goals and how they attach meanings to social actions premised on strong beliefs (Kincaid, 2000). The rationality approach to reality measures the means and end of an action in a pragmatic and straightforward manner. Formal rationality can be described as the extent to which simple actions premised on experience, logic, observations, calculations and science are used to attain a particular objective or to increase the chances of success of the particular action (“Formal and Substantive Rationality”, n.d.). On the other hand, substantive rationality refers to a goal–oriented rational approach that is objective to ultimate ends, which often focusses on problem-solving approaches to achieve a goal. Substantive rationality can also be described as a decision-making approach that is subjective to values and appeals to ethical norms but does take into consideration the nature of results (“Formal and Substantive Rationality”, n.d.). In drawing such distinctions, Weber identified various characteristics that are associated with rationalisation such calculability, efficiency, predictability, non-human technology, and uncertainty control. It is upon these features that the distinction between formal and substantive rationalities can be identified and explained. However, Weber went ahead to argue that because bureaucracy emphasises on technical orientations to means and ends, formal rationality replaces substantive rationality for this matter (“Formal and Substantive Rationality”, n.d.). The following is an appraisal of whether scientific management and human relations theory are formally rational, substantively rational, both or neither. Weber’s Formal and Substantive Rationality Before evaluating whether the scientific management and human relations’ theories are formally or substantively rational, it is significant to explore Weber’s views regarding each of these rationalities. Starting with formal rationality, in drawing the distinction, Weber posited formal rationalisation as the extent to which some actions happen because of quantitative and well- thought calculations (Grey, 2008). Therefore, an act is described a rational because its foremost structures are not only consistent and pointing in a similar direction, but are also not counterbracing others as well. According to Weber, this consistency is an outcome of formalisation. Such influence of formalisation is concisely resultant through mechanical forms of oversimplification that makes certain types of contradictions detectable (Kincaid, 2000). For this reason, formal computation is a rationalisation form that puts emphasis on processes rather than conclusions by addressing the manner in which decisions are made but not the conclusive results (Kincaid, 2000). Clearly, formal rationalisation is an extensive model of rationality that exemplifies bureaucratic organisations, which involve universally applied regulations and laws such as those in judicial and legal systems of today. However, in his description, Weber’s apprehension is that formal rationality is on a verge of rendering itself dominant in contemporary societies (Kincaid, 2000). He further noted that though formal rationality emerged as capitalists’ types of organisations, its advancement has led to the development of more formal organisations and procedures of operation. In consequence, organisational features associated with this rationality tends to crowd out other rationality forms, thus limiting the possibilities of organisational creativity and innovation (Clegg, Kornberger & Pitsis, 2011). As with substantive rationality, any action can be termed as rational if it can lead to successful ends. In this regard, substantive rationality, thus focuses on results and refers to economically based actions to attain some ultimate targets. However, Weber was not clear if certain upshots lend themselves to formal rationality more than others, or particular outcomes may compound the troubles of formal calculation (Rona-Tas, n.d.). For instance, take a situation where people may consider potential actions or values and attempt to make them repetitive and consistent. Weber recognised this as substantive rationality and considered it problematic in contemporary societies in that the rationalisation of aspects such as social life makes it difficult for individuals to pursue certain values (Rona-Tas, n.d.). For instance, the pursuit of family or spiritual values may be difficult in a contemporary society, considering the economic pressures and ascendancy of bureaucratic and officious organisations. Therefore, substantive rationality is a holistic judgement focussed on solving problems within a setting as opposed to a specialised, methodological thinking that dominates the modern society (Kincaid, 2000). This is unlike formal rationality where organisations, both governmental and corporate are structured on hierarchically ranked positions held by officers whose decision-making actions are guided by rules, policies, procedures and standards (Barros, 2010) Scientific Management Theory The scientific management theory by Fredrick Taylor is an important managerial tool for management whose influence is felt in all business practices such as process design, planning, quality control, ergonomics and cost accounting (Taylor, 2004). The theory emphasises on quantitative analysis by examining numbers and other quantitative measurable data to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of business operations in a contemporary bureaucratic environment by emphasising on a systematic approach to accomplishing tasks using mathematical, scientific and engineering analysis with the primary goal of reducing waste, increasing methods and processes of production to create a just network for the distribution of goods (“Frederick Taylor”, n.d.). The goal serves to benefit employers and employees, as well as the society. From these aspects of the definition and overview of the scientific management theory, it is clear the theory focuses on technical orientation, which is an aspect of bureaucracy; a function of formal rationality. For instance, the use of mathematical, scientific and engineering analysis is a technical orientation that is an aspect of formal rationality. The emphasis on quantitative analysis by examining numbers and other quantitative, measurable data to improve the effectiveness or detect contradictions in mechanical processes is a function of formal rationality (Grey, 2008). Conversely, the scientific management theory can be regarded to be formally rational because of the influence the theory has on business practices such as process design, planning, quality control, ergonomics and cost accounting, which are non-goal oriented and aims at achieving efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, the focus of scientific management theory is on the ends and actions and how individuals can achieve personal or organisational goals irrespective of any substantive rational questions that can arise (Kincaid, 2000). Thus, this implies scientific management is a procedural mechanism that is an element of formal rationality. The scientific management theory was founded on four basic principles. The first principle requires studying the manner in which a job is performed by analysing it and reducing it to laws, rules or mathematical formulas to determine new ways of accomplishing it (“Frederick Taylor”, n.d.). These factors are aspects of formal rationalisation and thus demonstrate that the scientific management theory is an element of formal rationality. The second principle articulates for codification of the determined methods into rules to allow for scientific selection, training and development of workers lieu of abandoning them to train alone. The third principle demands that the scientifically developed new methods are being used by the workers in completing their assigned tasks (“Frederick Taylor”, n.d.). Finally, the fourth principle advocates for division of work between the workers and management so that managers can use scientific management principles to set fair levels of performance and reward for higher performance (“Frederick Taylor”, n.d.). From these principles, Taylor advocated a scientific way of accomplishing tasks by following a procedural approach, which is a component of formal rationality. On the other hand, scientific management theory can be regarded as a component of substantive rationality because to some extent it embodies the perceptions of Weber when he argues that people should consider potential actions or values that are repetitive and consistent in finding solutions to problematic circumstances. From a broad perspective, this can be viewed as codifying rules or establishing procedures for problem-solving. However, even though Weber recognised this as substantive rationality, he considered it problematic in contemporary societies in that the rationalisation of aspects such as social life makes it difficult for individuals to pursue certain values. For this reason, it is justifiable and evident that the scientific management theory is a component of formal rationality because it embodies some or all the aspects of science, which are procedural, rule or process based. Human Relations Theory The Hawthorne studies by Professor Elton Mayo demonstrated that people desire to belong to supportive groups that can foster growth and development (Perry, 2011). He concluded from his studies that if employees believe they are valued by the organisation they will perceive their work as imperative and thus, will be motivated to increase productivity (Perry, 2011). A number of academicians, researchers and critics argue that Elton’s work is a counterpoint to Taylor’s scientific management theory, which advocates science in the managing employees at the work environment. However, Elton’s work has been credited for recognising employees as social persons rather than robots meant to work for unrealistic and unethical productivity expectations (Akrani, 2011). The human relations theory can thus be regarded as a substantively rational theory as it focuses on the social person by considering ethical dimensions irrespective of the ultimate results. For instance, from the definition substantive rationality was described as a decision-making approach that is subjective to values and appeals to ethical norms but one which does take into consideration the nature of results but rather takes a holistic approach that aims at finding solutions to problems (Rona-Tas, n.d.). Thus, the human relations theory does take into consideration the technical orientations such as computations and technical analysis, which are the characteristics of formal rationality. Conversely, the human relations theory is a goal oriented tool of management that focuses on interpersonal and communication aspects, which are non-technical orientations of management (Rona-Tas, n.d.). For this reason, given these aspects are elements of substantive rationalisation, it is justifiable the human relations theory is a component of substantive rationalisation. Akrani (2011) argues that the human relations studies attempted to integrate the aspects of sociology, psychology and management to formulate the principles of the human relations theory. He goes ahead to state some of the principles that include; organisations works through not only formal aspects but also informal relations; employees need good communication and desire to be involved in decision making; workers are social beings and must be respected and treated like people and not machines (Akrani, 2011). All these aspects take a non-technical approach to management and advocate for ethical norms in organisations as a way of achieving effectiveness and efficiency lieu of technical aspects of formal rationalisation that advocate for procedural approaches to management as a way of achieving efficiency and effectiveness. Conclusion Ultimately, is it is evident there is a wide disparity between formal and substantive rationality. The theory of scientific management is formally rational even though it depicts few aspects of substantive rationality, which have not been substantially explored, thus rendering the theory to be justifiably a component of formal rationalisation. On the other hand, the human relations theory embodies only aspects of substantive rationalisation as it focuses only on the social person and ethical norms that are characteristics of substantive rationalisation. Thus, the rationality approach to reality can help managers measure the means and ends of an action in a pragmatic and straightforward manner by considering the formal and substantive types of rationalisation, which are the two most crucial aspects of rationalisation. Bibliography Akrani, G., 2011. Principles of Human Relations Approach to management. Available at: http://kalyan-city.blogspot.com/2011/04/principles-of-human-relations-approach.html [Accessed 17 Feb. 2014]. Barros, G., 2010. Herbert A. Simon and the concept of rationality: boundaries and procedures. Revista de Economia Política, 30(3), 455-472. Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T., 2011. Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. New York, NY. Sage. Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management. (n.d.). Available at: http://www.netmba.com/mgmt/scientific/ [Accessed 17 Feb. 2014]. Grey, C., 2008. A very short fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations. New York, NY. Sage. Kincaid, H., 2000. Formal rationality and its pernicious effects on the social sciences. Philosophy of the social sciences, 30(1), 67-88. Perry, G.L., 2011. Human Relations Management Theory Basics: Understand the basic premise behind the human relations management theory. Available at: http://www.business.com/management-theory/human-relations-management-theory-basics/ [Accessed 17 Feb. 2014]. Revision: Formal and substantive rationality. (n.d.). Available at: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Revision:Formal_and_substantive_rationality [Accessed 17 Feb. 2014]. Rona-Tas, A., n.d. The three modalities of rationality and their contradictions in post-communist consumer credit markets. Taylor, F. W., 2004. Scientific management. London: Routledge. Read More