Principles of Organization Theory and Practice - Case Study Example

Principles of Organization Theory and Practice Organizations can be comprised of a collage of employees who perform a variety of different processes as a team or in a group to meet organizational goals. While performing these processes, employees may exhibit emotions and behaviors including attitudes, needs, expectations, problems, and experiences. Analyzing and understanding the shifting behaviors of workers as they about communicating with each other within the organizational process will help organizational leaders develop an understanding of emergent patterns and themes within the workplace. When employee patterns or themes are recognized, the organizational process can be studied to understand any intricacies that may have emerged and how employees should perform to fulfill each intricacy. Organizational theory (OT) is the study of an organization and the employees of the organization to identify common themes, solve existing problems, maximize efficiency and productivity, and meet the needs and expectations of stakeholders, including customers. OT can be conceptualized by studying three major subtopics: (a) individual processes, (b) group processes, and (c) organizational processes (Barzilai, n.d.). If an individual process like employee’s productivity, motivation, etc is focused, group processes involving the individual processes will work effectively, and the organizational process will be optimized. In this paper, the historic background of OT will be investigated. The three theoretical perspectives of OT including (a) modern, (b) symbolic interpretive, and (c) postmodern will be compared and a discussion of how the three perspectives are applicable in organizational management will be presented. Finally, the perspective with the most utility will be presented. Historical Background of Organizational Theory Researchers have been studying organizational functioning from the turn of the 20th century. In early research only factors such as the principles of administration, physical conditions of the work environment and principles of industrial engineering were included in organizational theoretical and behavioral studies. In 1950, human behavior factors and the impact on organizational functioning were considered an important part of organizational study. Human behavior factors caused the shift in focus by researchers to group dynamics, individual attitudes and the rapport between workers and managers. In 2010, organizational theoretical perspectives are defined as the scientific study of understanding the patterns of employees, team work and organizational processes, which are influenced by external and internal factors. There are several different approaches to the study of management and organizational functioning, which have collectively become known as theories of management thought. The debate concerning organizational theoretical perspectives, including modern, symbolic interpretative and postmodern, is if these theoretical perspectives are helpful in understanding and managing organizations in the 21st century. Similar to many other management theories that remain relevant over time, OT theories continue to be relevant as they are adapted, or re-engineered over time. OT theory is used to prescribe solutions to problems that affect organizations in 2010. Thus, if organizational leaders establish best practices or patterns using organizational theory, they ultimately attract more businesses. Comparison of Modern, Symbolic Interpretative and Postmodern Theories, and their Application in Management Issues Modern According to modern organizational theorists, organizational environments are adaptive and behave or change based on environmental, and in particular, external environment input. Thus, when organizational leaders adopt modern theory, they will continuously improvise according to environmental inputs rather than following a set pattern for a longer period of time, thereby making employees part of continuous and dynamic process. Modern theories tend to be based on the concept that the organization is a system which has to adapt to changes in its environment. In modern theory, an organization is defined as a designed and structured process in which individuals interact for objectives. (fao.org, n.d.) Awareness of external environmental factors can help an organization’s leaders to adapt to changing political and economic factors. With this adaptation, the organizational leaders will receive assistance in areas such as advertising and public relations, which will in turn make the company and the employees adaptable to fulfill the customers’ needs. External adaptation will lead to internal adaptation as the organizational leaders make employees adaptable to change; thereby, making them highly motivated and productive. This will in turn increase the quality of the product and customer satisfaction, thereby fulfilling external demands. In the external environment, the organizational leaders should focus on factors that may positively and negatively influence the organization. The organizational leaders could face political and economic threats, so when they focus on opportunities external factors should be monitored and efforts made to set targets and formulate clear organizational processes for employees. “The analysis of the environment can be segmented...There is the issue of the firms general environment, [and] the broad environment comprising a mix of general factors such as social and political issues” (Dobson & Starkey, 2004, p.6). Symbolic Interpretative The symbolic interpretative perspective of OT is used to focus on the presence of decision makers who analyze external environmental factors and who frame the patterns under OT. Thus, the leader’s perspective is focused on the second line of action, after modern perspective actions. As the environmental inputs flow into the organization and make the organization and the employees adaptable, some participants who have a higher degree of power will assume the role of decision makers and will be able to influence their way in the setting of patterns. “Decision makers use their interpretations of the environment to take actions, they deem appropriate-in a sense they create the environment to which they then respond” (Dopson & Fitzgerald, 2005, p.X14).  Even with technology entering every segments of an organization, decisions must be made by humans. When the decision making process is started, certain factors including the different views of employees, their personalities and emotions, must be considered. These different views will be congregated into a single plan by the decision maker. However, condensing the views into a single plan or even a singular strategy is not an easy process. If the decision maker makes a decision or single-handedly forms a pattern, that decision could be opposed, making it difficult to actualize in the organization. “Theoretically a decision maker can arrive at a set of perceptions that suggest a certain choice but discard that choice on the basis of values” (Hambrick & Mason, 1984, p. 195). Thus, even while assuming the role of decision maker, the decision maker should try to form a consensus and formulate the best plan after analyzing all the different views. The key model, which complements symbolic interpretative theory and presents a range of organizational design possibilities, is rational decision making process. Rational decision making models involve a process in which each step follows in a consistent order. Rational decision making can be worked out positively for the decision maker and also for the employees and the organization. “Faced with such common decision challenges as information overload, ambiguous cues, and competing goals and objectives, executives’ perceptions of stimuli are filtered and interpreted through cognitive bases and values” (Carpenter, Geletkanycz and Sander, 2004, p.750). When groups cooperate and coordinate effectively to make decisions, the process of rational decision making can be successful and there are major chances to contribute effective inputs. This is in opposition to the idea that each employee would have differing views and could oppose the decision. Postmodern Postmodern theorists place importance on decentralization while forming the patterns and giving importance to all employees during the decision making process, instead of placing the power on a few individuals. Postmodern frames of analysis are seen to fit well with organizations in which people work in a small and more decentralized, informal, and flexible setup (Dopson & Fitzgerald, 2005). One of the key processes by which the organizational leaders can make the theory applicable, is by using a decision making process in which all employees participate and contribute, thus actualizing decentralization. During the process of decision making, the leader or the decision maker could bring up for discussion his or her thoughts, ideas, and strategies among the employees and get feedback, thereby productively involving all employees. This strategy would have favorable results because when employees are given responsibility and are expected to provide feedback, they will optimally use their minds to come up with good suggestions. Logically, if the workers with responsibility keep participating in the decision making process, they will understand the intricacies of organizational functioning. Effective human resource (HR) models can be used to specify that when workers participate in important decision making processes they comprehend the intricacies of organization functioning. Employees can use their knowledge and skills to develop effective feedback that can be adopted as optimal strategies for organizational functioning. Thus, different views from different employees are important as part of a decentralized setup and are in line with proponents of postmodern theory. Different views from a large number of employees will give rise to varied ideas, from which the best can be selected and incorporated as part of organizational strategy (Dallas, 2002). Using this strategy, employees can have maximum confidence in their organizational position because they have contributed something useful to the groups’ decision making process. As a result, decentralization or involved decision making processes, not only optimize the employees’ motivation, but also helps decision makers to make informed decisions. “The successful firms were more likely to use a comprehensive decision-making process. Managers in these firms sought out more advice and considered more alternatives than did managers in poorer performing firms” (Rabin, Miller, & Hildreth, 2000, p. 37). Deeper Comparison and Contrast All organizations are not static and leaders will continue to follow preset strategies and processes. Leaders will need to create updated strategies and processes over time and based on the external environment which includes the target customer and political, economic, and social factors. While creating these strategies, organizational leaders will formulate certain patterns and work practices according to the external environment. “An organization is enacted by people developing particular work practices, rather than existing objectively and independently of social action.” (Dopson & Fitzgerald, 2005, p. 14). While this is a common practice in all organizations, the difference between the modern perspective and symbolic interpretative perspective is that, while modern theory proponents focus on the environment and how it shapes the organization, symbolic interpretative theory proponents put the onus on the decision makers to shape the organization based on the external environment. “For example, modernist contingency theory assumes that the environment determines the nature of the organization. However, symbolic interpretivist scholars would argue that such environmental forces have to be sensed and analyzed by organizational decision-makers” (Dopson & Fitzgerald, 2005, p. 14). Symbolic interpretative theory proponents take the next step and focus on the human or employee role in the formation of organizational themes as part of organizational theory. As discussed above, modern organizational theorists stipulated that organizational leaders need to focus on the external environment by exploring all external factors. Under the modernist perspective, organizational leaders should not limit their knowledge gathering but should instead use their resources to scan the external environment to help in pattern formation. Modernists have argued against the use of the five senses by using sense-enhancing devices including reports about the external environment from prestigious dailies and reports from experts, but what is considered as data are collected by the eyes, ears, nose, tongue or skin. Modernists claimed that ‘I saw (heard, smelled, tasted or touched) the data (oup.com, 2006, p.15). Symbolic interpretivists extend the range beyond the five senses and include other forms of experience outside the five senses, particularly emotion and intuition. Emotion and intuition are clear qualities or characteristics that are exhibited by a decision maker or by individuals who make the decisions. Symbolic interpretative perspective proponents focus on the human element in the analysis of the environment and resultant pattern formation. Another interesting and differing perspective between the two theories is that, as the decision maker makes the decision based the interpretation of the external environment input and on his or her analysis, it will be specific to his or her organization only, without any overall outlook. This context-specific nature of the symbolic interpretative theory is untenable to supporters of modern theory. Symbolic interpretativists findings should not be generalized beyond the context in which they were produced. Modernists find this problematic and ask “Can we really call what we create knowledge if we are unable to replicate studies or apply their findings to other organizations?” (oup.com, 2006, p.15). Postmodernism encompasses a diverse set of ideas, concepts, and models that emerge “as a reaction against modernism or as a natural evolution of modernism” (Withrow, 2008, p.47). In the 1950s after the World War II, as certain theorists were not in favor of modern theories, they came up with postmodern theories and different theoretical perspectives. This opposition to modernism and the influence of postmodernism as part of organizational theory led to postmodern organizational theory. “It found its way into organization theory through applications of linguistic and literary theory. It developed in opposition to modernism and its search for grand narratives or within organization theory general predictive models” (Dopson & Fitzgerald, 2005, p. 15). The perspective is in contrast to modern and symbolic interpretative perspectives, which focus on decision makers or the managerial elite for theme formation. Postmodern organizational theory proponents place the responsibility on the employees. Postmodernists dispute traditional theories including modern theory because they want equal powers for all employees or stakeholders in an organization. They opine that Modernist theory is seen not as science but as an ideological legitimation of the power held by the managerial elites. While Postmodernists critique the power held by managerial elites, seeking to reclaim and put the onus on the marginalized elements within the organizations. (Dopson & Fitzgerald, 2005, p. 15) Conclusion From this analysis, it can be stated that each perspective has its own features and justification. By comparing and contrasting and the differences between these perspectives, an idea can be formed about which perspective is suitable for an organization. “It is important to understand the differences in the applications of the perspectives because these differences are not only crucial to how theory is created but also to the way organizing is practiced” (oup.com, 2006, p.17). Of the theoretical organizational theory perspectives discussed, the postmodern perspective appears to have the most utility because it encourages decentralization and a kind of democracy, and denounces centralized decision making processes by a select few individuals, which can be productive for the organization. As discussed, productively involving employees in the decision making process and giving them opportunities to come up with feedback during pattern formation in response to external environment can elevate their motivation and make them contribute more effectively to the organization. References Barzilai, K. (n. d.). Organizational theory. Retrieved from http://www.cwru.edu/med/epidbio/mphp439/Organizational_Theory.htm Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, A and Sander, G (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Managemen . 30(6): 749-780. Dallas, J. (2002). The new managerialism and diversity on corporate boards of directors. Tulane Law Review, 76: 1363-1391. Dobson, P., & Starkey, K. (2004). Strategic management: Issues and cases (2nd ed.). London, UK: Blackwell. Dopson, S., & Fitzgerald, L. (2005). Knowledge to action?: Evidence-based health care in context. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. fao.org. (n. d.). Session 1. Organizational theories. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7503e/w7503e03.htm Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2). oup.com. (2006). What is organization theory? Retrieved from http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199260218/hatch_ch01.pdf. Rabin, J., Miller, G., & Hildreth, W. B. (2000). Handbook of strategic management. London, UK: CRC Press. Withrow, L. R. (2008). Claiming new life: Process-church for the future. St. Louis, MO, USA: Chalice Press. Read More