The Distinction between Formal Rationality and Substantive Rationality - Essay Example

Explain What Weber Meant By the Distinction between Formal Rationality and Substantive Rationality Table of Contents Introduction 3 Meaning of Weber by the Distinction between Formal Rationality and Substantive Rationality 3 Analysing That Scientific Management and Human Relation Theory Are Formally Rational, Substantively Rationally, Both or Neither by Using the Concepts of Formal Rationality and Substantive Rationality 6 Conclusions 9 References 10 Introduction Max Weber created distinction among the formal rationality as well as substantive rationality to analyse the economic along with administrative institutions. Rationality means the quality, which is based on facts. It indicates the conventionality of one’s belief. Weber planned an understanding of social accomplishment that differentiates the four diverse ideal types of rationality. The term formal rationality describes the means-ends calculation and the term substantive rationality defines the goal leaning rational accomplishment within the help of framework. Formal rationality involves in creation of choices based on common rules, regulations as well as the social structure of the society. On the other hand, substantive rationality involves in deciding the best solutions directed by entire collective values (Elwell, 2005). This paper intends to explain about the meaning of Weber by distinguishing between the formal rationality and substantive rationality. This paper also deals with the analyses that scientific management as well as human relations theory are formally rational, substantively rational or both or neither. Scientific management theory is important for every business operation around the world. It helps to improve the efficiency of the organization by enhancing the flow of tasks. On the other hand, human relation theory establishes a convergence between social, psychological and economic goals of members as well as organization goals of production, productivity and profit (Rose, 2005). Meaning of Weber by the Distinction between Formal Rationality and Substantive Rationality Weber proposed an understanding of social achievement that is divided among four varied types of rationality. Weber created the distinction among the formal rationality and the substantive rationality. Weber suggested, in formal rationality the degree to which achievement happens as a result of quantitative as well as proper calculations. An act should be rational because its assembly is reliable, its features are directing in the same course. An act must be rational because it can encourage certain ends effectively. On the other side, substantive rationality focus on the results and it refers to the achievement or failure of economically learning action to attain ultimate goals such as justice or equality (Tas, 2007). Weber is uncertain whether definite ends incline them to the formal rationality rather than others even if positive kinds of ends might complex the problems of formal calculations. Weber also claims that formal rationality in the budget as well as elsewhere is limited. Weber already understood that the rational calculation not only depends on the rational capacities as well as partialities of humans and the works done by the individual but also by others around them and configuration of the social institutions (Wallace, 1990). The distinction amid the formal rationality and the substantive rationality started not from the perspectives of a historical institution but also from the perspectives of the rational limitations of individual, developed by Herbert Simon. According to the view of Weber, current society particularly the western is developing increasingly in a rationalized way. Generally, Weber was of the view that the society can be effective and can develop or modernise by the implementation of bureaucracy. There are four types of rationality at the core of Weber’s theory of rationalization (Wallace, 1990). One of them is practical rationality, which is observed based on the day- to day activities of people. It reflects the worldly interest of people in an effective manner with due respect to modernisation. In terms of Weber, people follow practical rationality in order to solve their daily issues in life. Moreover, Weber in terms of practical rationality states that it helps individuals to look for “methodical attainment of a definitely given and practical end by means of an increasingly precise calculation of adequate means” (Ritzer, 2007). An act can also be rational not because it can attain its objectives and use the formal as well as consistent process but because of its understanding towards each and every individual (Tas, 2007). Theoretical rationality implies “an increasingly theoretical mastery of reality by means of increasingly precise and abstract concepts” (Ritzer, 2007). Contextually, theoretical leadership involves actions such as reasonable deduction and structuring of symbolic meanings for better results. The significance of this is to deliver meaning to the world when required based on situations. Usually theoretical rationality results from the essential requirements of actors to provide some rational meaning to a world, which appears disorganized. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that practical rationality deals with action but theoretical rationality is a reasoning process. Substantive rationality involves value, which helps people in their daily life in making choices (Tas, 2007). In this context, the values are considered to be rational when they are recognised to be consistent with respect to specific value favoured by the actors. Furthermore, economic activities can be best linked with substantive rationality. According to Weber, substantive rationality involves decision, which is directed by greater system of human morals or values. It also involves collections of values, which is conducted by individuals in their daily actions of life. Substantive rationality focuses on the problem solving process within the certain structure of values and this rationality is also known as the serious concern for the society. Through this rationality, people may consider a variety of probable standards or values and should have the ability and power to make that standards or values reliable. The economic system of substantive rationality is required where the effectiveness of economic system is concerned with the satisfaction level of morals or values (Wallace, 1990). On the other hand, formal rationality involves calculation of rational, based on the rules, principles and structure of the society. The laws, rules and social structure determine the decision of formal rationality. The major concern of the individuals involved in businesses following the formal rational approach continue profit making over the long run through sustainable management, which in turn benefits the economy as a whole. Formal rationality is also a serious concern for the organization or business for making profits (Ritzer, 2007). Formal rationality can relocate other rationalities around the world. Due to complexities in the society or culture, formal rationality permits individuals to make decisions based on the rules as well as principles. Hence, it can be concluded that even though both formal rationality as well as substantive rationality is different from each other, both rationalities are of significance for making corrective decisions (Ritzer, 2007). Analysing That Scientific Management and Human Relation Theory Are Formally Rational, Substantively Rationally, Both or Neither by Using the Concepts of Formal Rationality and Substantive Rationality Scientific management theory is also called Taylorism, which helps in analysing the workflows. The major objective of this theory is to enhance the efficiency of the economy particularly the productivity of labour. Fredrick Winslow Taylor established the theory in the year 1980s and 1990s around the manufacturing industries. Scientific management theory was effective as it monitored the performances of workers and helps in ensuring greater productivity. In recent years, most of themes of this theory are still essential for the industrial engineering as well as management (Thenmozhi, n.d.). The scientific management theory is derived from the need to improve the productivity of the work. Particularly, in the twentieth century in the United State the supply of skilled labours was limited. Therefore, the one and only way to develop the productivity was to increase the efficiency of the workers for greater efficiency and progression. To develop the productivity by raising the effectiveness of the workers, Fredrick developed the scientific management theory because Taylor understood that proper management as well as labour are the main interests in raising productivity (Thenmozhi, n.d.). On the other hand, human relation in management helps to reduce the conflicts between the organization as well as individual for delivering productiveness. It also reduces the differences of the individual and helps in attaining the goals of the institutions. Furthermore, Mary and Mayo developed the human relation theory, to control the situation and the working environment to enhance the management fundamentals. The fundamental concept of Mayo is that the working place must be similar to the social environments and there must be good relationship among the workers and managers to enhance the productivity level. Human relation theory is the positive as well as optimistic theory (Rose, 2005). It increases the teamwork and helps the individuals to get involved in the process of decision making for greater effectiveness. Mayo recognizes the importance of human factor in organization therefore, developed the human relation theory for managing the work environment and the culture within an organization. It is reflected from the study that the success of an organisation depends upon the working environment and the behaviour of human being. Both scientific management theory and human relation theory has their own importance based on its perspectives. Human relation theory is also essential for enhancing the productivity of workers by managing organizational culture, which helps workers to make their own decision (Rose, 2005). Rationality implies to the behaviour of individuals and their approach towards making corrective decisions. It is recognised that people make rational decisions based on the objectives within the given conditions and constraints. Formal rationality focuses on the calculation of rational based on the rules and regulation whereas substantive rationality defines the objectives oriented achievements within the framework. On the other scientific management theory, is important to enhance the economic efficiency and productivity. Therefore, from the above concept of formal rationality and substantive rationality it can be stated that scientific management theory belongs to both rationalities. From the above discussion of human relation theory, it can also be state that human relation theory also belongs to both rationalities such as formal as well as substantive (Menestrel, 1999). Substantive rationality especially focus on the attainment of the goals of the organization on the other hand human relation theory focuses on the achievement of the objectives of the organization through the effective team work as well as maintaining good relationship among all workers. Scientific management theory and human relation theory can achieve the goals and enhance the productivity of the worker as well as labours by utilising the concept of these two types of rationalities. These two rationalities are essential for development of the organization as well as management (Tas, 2007). Behaviour can be substantively rational when it is suitable for the accomplishments of the given objectives within the constraints. Therefore, it states the significant measurement of behaviour. Behaviour can be formally rational when decisions are created based on the rules, regulation and social structure of the society. According to the scientific management and human relation theory, in an organization the worker should follow some rules as well as regulations at the time of making decision and during the time of working. Manager give targets or goals to the workers along with the time limit and workers should achieve the target within the time limit (Menestrel, 1999). It improves the performance of workers as well as organization and increases the level of productivity of workers. The workers should think rationally all the facts related to work to fulfil the target within the given time and achieve the objectives. If the workers behave rationally rather than other way then it can be stated as a positive aspect for organization as well as workers. This will help workers to maintain a good relationship with co-workers within or outside organizations (Menestrel, 1999) Conclusions From the above discussion, it can be stated that rationality means the quality, which is based on the facts as well as reasons. Weber makes the difference between the formal rationality and the substantive rationality efficiently. Formal rationality makes decisions based on common guidelines and principles of the society. On the other side, substantive rational includes in deciding the best solutions through the collective values. From the above discussion, it can also be observed that scientific management theory as well as human relation theory belongs to both rationalities such as formal rationalities and substantive rationalities. Scientific management theory was developed for improving the productivity of labour and efficiency of work. Taylor also addresses that management and labour are important for raising the productivity of the organization. On the other hand human relation theory is of importance for improving the work culture of organization and maintains good relationship with other members. Therefore, workers can perform as a team and complete the given tasks with the time. References Elwell, W. F., 2005. The Irrationality Factor. Max Weber. [Online] Available at: http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Weber/Whome4.htm [Accessed February 22, 2015]. Menestrel, L. M., 1999. A Model Of Rational Behaviour Combining Processes And Consequences. Dissertation, pp. 1-71. Rose, N., 2005. Human Relations Theory and People Management. Studying Organizations, pp. 44-62. Ritzer, G., 2007. The Weberian Theory of Rationalization and the McDonaldization of Contemporary Society. Chapter Two, pp. 41- 59. Tas, R. A., 2007. The Three Modalities of Rationality and Their Contradictions in Post-Communist Consumer Credit Markets. University of California, pp. 1-14. Thenmozhi, M., No Date. Evolution of Management Theory. Department of Management Studies, pp. 1-22. Wallace, L. W., 1990. Rationality, Human Nature and Society in Weber’s Theory. Theory of Society, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 199-223. Read More