Why Most Managers Find Rational Approaches to Organizations and Organizing Appealing - Coursework Example

Introduction Managers use rationality in the narrow sense of functionality or technical rationality. This refers to the level that a series that arranges actions in a way that leads to predetermined goals with maximum competence. This implies that rationality refers to both goals selection and their implementation in an organization. According to Marnet (2007), managers use rational systems as instruments to attain specific goals designed for the organization. Rational models assume that managers carry out their duties depending on the objective of an organization, empirical verifiable reality, which presents demands for action. A working framework, the apparent cause, guides them and effect relations then calculate costs and benefits and hence take an action of the external environment or production technology. Since managers have objectives at hand, they will be a position to mobilize resources appropriately towards benefiting an organization. As noted by Halley and Winkler (2008) open system organizations exchange resources and information with environment. These organizations cannot completely take control of their behaviors because external forces influence their operations. Examples of factors that affect open systems include demand of customers, government regulations as well as availability of raw of materials (Halley and Winkler, 2008). Systems at different levels vary in many ways such as complexity and size but they have common characteristics by virtue of being open systems. This research paper is about the reasons as to why most managers find rational approaches to organizations and organizing appealing. It also highlights how open systems benefit managers. Further, it gives examples of open systems. Reasons that make rational approaches to the organization and organizing are appealing. Managers prefer to use rational approaches because it clearly specifies goals of organizations. Since goals are conceptions of desired ends, these conceptions vary in their precision and specificity of their criteria of desirability. Specific goals do not only provide criteria for selecting among alternative activities, but they also supply guide decisions about designing the structure of an organization. They enable managers to determine the task to perform, the kind of personnel and allocation of resources to all participants (Gans, 1994). It is important to note that some organizations espouse quite general and vague activities, but they use relatively specific goals to guide them in their daily operations and give criteria for selecting among alternative activities and for designing the structure of an organization. Halley and Winkler (2008) notes that as organizations become more specific, over time, they are limited and more often as it happen, or structures designed are likely to be more stable and amorphous. The rational system assumes that an organization exist in a formalized structure. In a formalized structure, the rules governing behavior they precisely formulate because it prescribes role relations independently of personal attributes and relations of people that occupy positions in the structure. Formalization makes behavior to be more predictable by standardizing and regulating it. This enables formation of stable expectations by every member under specified conditions and these are essential preconditions to a rational consideration of outcomes of action in a given social group. Further formalization is an attempt of making a more explicit and visible structure of relationships among a set of roles and principles that govern behavior in a system. Managers view rationale approach as a means and instrument that they can modify to improve performance of an organization. Designers of an organization and managers draw and redraw organizational charts that enable them to improve performance by diagramming plays and giving chalk talks. They further employ consultants to recommend better arrangements that enable them to achieve business goals’ According to Gans (1994) the use of rationale approach enable managers employ Taylor’s scientific management theory because this scientifically analyze tasks that individuals perform to discover those procedures that would give the maximum output with a minimum input of resources and energies in the organization. This emphasizes on analyzing individual tasks and an attempt to rationalize labor at levels of the individual worker inevitability that lead to changes in the whole structure of work arrangements. According to this theory, managers will put in more efforts to improve the efficiency of performance of their work. In the rationale approach, the managers employ administrative theory of Fayol. Fayol developed this theory concurrently with scientific management, and it emphasizes on management functions as it attempts to generate broad administrative principles that would serve as guidelines to rationalize activities of an organization (Han et al., 2010). The approach ensures that there is coordination among all workers in an organization where all participants are linked into a single pyramidal structure of control relations. It emphasizes that participants should not get instructions from more than one supervisor. In addition, no supervisor can oversee large number of subordinates that are too much to handle. However, various contributors to this approach did not reach an agreement about the number of principles they require or the exact formulation of many specific principles (Ansari and Euske, 1987). As noted by Han et al., (2010) despite many organizations preferring to use rational system in their operations, this is not the appropriate model because it led to collapse of many corporate. For example, Enron was the largest scandal that led to collapse of the biggest corporate that collapsed in history due to use of rational system. Other organizations that collapsed thereafter because of fraud in rational model were Parmalt, Neuer markt in German and WorldCom revealed that there was a problem in the corporate world. Examples open system organizations According to Sanchez (2004) organizations such as Vodafone Airtel among others are examples of open systems because they allow external forces to have their way to operating level of the organization. The outsiders can interact with both customer executives as well as working executives to find out how they execute their mandate. The organizations cannot keep top secrets, and this makes it easier for competitors to attack them in the market. Benefits of open systems to the managers The open system is more efficient in solving problems as compared to other systems. This is because by the use of this model, the managers will be in a position to identify real causes of problems, and how amicably deal with them. It provides a clear understanding of the entire structure of an organization that ease in management of the organization (Gordon and Winston, 1989). There is leadership that is more efficient in this system when compared to open system. The managers in this system will set direction and influence other participant to follow that direction. The open system aids the managers to understand the overall structures and dynamics of an organization that they use to guide participants to realize strategic goals and vision. As stated by Endres, et al (2007), managers come up with a more efficient planning. The open system view often makes the process of planning much more clear and orderly manner because it includes the desired results, what measures will indicate that they have realized those results. It further illustrates the processes that produce those outputs and what inputs are required to carry out those processes in the system. Open system enhances a more effective communication between managers and other participants. This is an important ingredient for the success of an organization because all participants communicate well with each other to ease realization of organization objective (Endres, et al., 2007). The managers know how to channel information from top management staff to junior staff in the organization. Lastly, this system produces more effective organization results. The managers use a number of methods to realize objectives of an organization. The methods include provision of resources, couching, team building, and principles of organizational change, strategic planning and facilitating among others. Natural systems The natural system view organizations as being holistic that is, they see an organization as models that strive to attain their own goals, as well as other important goals. The organization aims at maintaining a balance of its various goals and needs that in most cases restrict the way in which it pursues other goals. This implies that the organization before engaging in other activities it must reflect on key objectives. Further, this system sees the modification of an organization as unplanned. The system has adaptive reactions to unstable conditions that are likely to threaten the balance of the entire organization (Endres, et al., 2007). The nature in which the organization responds to organizations is characterized as a defensive strategy and the common value of people in the organization influence it. Benefits of natural systems to managers The managers in natural systems cannot only change a small part of an organization but they must change the whole organization. This is because the system views change as affecting the whole organization rather than individuals or individual units. This enables planning for change to be systematic and comprehensive. The natural system aids in preventing conflict while making changes by engaging all members of the organization (Sanchez, 2004). The use of natural system model enables managers to balance the needs of all members in the organization as well as other participants such as shareholders, customers and suppliers. It further works on assumptions that the organization performs well when members belong to at least working group such as a department or a staff group. The members who belong to more than one group in an organization assist in linking different units of the organization together and enhance communication and exchange of information on the entire organization (Gans, 1994). This system does not enable an organization to exploit it potential fully because organizational goal in the natural system is problematic. The analysts in the natural systems pay more attention to behavior thus worrying more about the complex interconnection between behavioral and normative structures of organizations. The managers point out that the organization does not use all its resources to produce products, but it extends energy in maintaining itself. This perception though useful, it does not go quite far because it does not real capture the objective of an organization. Conclusion In conclusion, the rational system has structural arrangements that enable managers to realize outcomes. The designers of this model believed that managers could use general principles of management to come up with tasks that the organization can do or not do in the decision-making process. To a large extend rationality resides in the structure itself but not the individual participants and this makes the participants to act in a specific way to realize objectives of an organization. The open system allows external people to know about their operations since their need each other for the exchange of information and resources. Most of the organizations prefer to use open system because it has a number of benefits to managers. In this system, for example, there is a hierarchical movement of information and this helps managers to execute their tasks appropriately. References: Ansari S and Euske, K (1987): Rational Rationalizing, and Reifying uses of accounting Data in Organizations: Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 549-570, 1987 Gordon C. & Winston, G (1989): Imperfectly Rational Choice; Rationality as the Result of a Costly Activity: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 12 (1989) 67-86. Halley, J & Winkler, A (2008): Critical-like self-organization and natural selection: Two facets of a single evolutionary process? BioSystems 92, 148–158 Han Li, Zhang J, & Sarathy, R (2010): Understanding compliance with internet use policy from the perspective of rational choice theory: Decision Support Systems 48, 635–645 Marnet, O (2007): History repeats itself: The failure of rational choice models in corporate governance: Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18, 191–210 Sanchez, R (2004): Understanding competence-based management Identifying and managing five modes of competence; Journal of Business Research 57, 518– 532 Endres, M, Endres, P, Chowdhury, K and Intakhab, A (2007): Tacit knowledge sharing, self-efficacy theory, and application to the Open Source community: Journal of Knowledge management Vol. 11 No. 32, pp. 92-103, Gans, J (1994): On the impossibility of rational choice under incomplete information; Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization Vol. 29 (1996) 287-309 Read More