Rationality in Max Webers Perspective - Essay Example

and Meaning of Rationality Rationality in its simplest terms is the ability to make reasonable judgements with the foundation of facts. It entails the weighing of options by conforming to one’s belief and giving rational decisions with specific reasons based on one’s actions. Rational configurations in organizations are often regarded as effective solutions towards configuration management that tends to provide active support to modern organisations. This support can be measured in the form of conducting varied significant activities that entail better workspace management, greater developmental maintenance and forming effective communication among others. It is worth mentioning that the term ‘rationality’ is related to the notion of rational configurations. In this similar context, the notion of rationality represents the behavioural styles that are deemed appropriate towards the attainment of predetermined objectives. The distinct forms of rationality can be ascertained as ‘theoretical’, ‘practical’, ‘formal’ and ‘substantive’. Based on these diverse rationality forms, the techniques of rationality are mostly carried out by studying varied theories concerning to human behaviour, weighing the undergoing or prevailing situations and making effective decisions in accordance with the respective problems or challenges that emerge due to the presence of such conditions. In this modern era, the importance of following, developing and maintaining rational configurations is increasingly growing due to the factors comprising gaining momentum of globalisation and prevalence of extreme business market competition among others. The varied types of rational configurations can be segregated as ‘division of labour’, ‘principles relating to scientific management’ and ‘bureaucracy’. This paper will focus on assessing the significance of applying rationality to the organization. Max Weber, a German socialist, came up with an interpretation that distinguished four different types of rationality. They include practical, substantive, formal and theoretical rationality. Rationality in Max Weber’s Perspective Max Weber was one of the first people in the contemporary world to think about the importance of bureaucracy. The term is derived from a French word “bureau” which refers to small desks that were set up in towns by the representatives of the king as they toured the country for commercial purposes. So in short bureaucracy means “government with a small desk”, Weber regarded bureaucracy as a rational technique engineered by complex businesses and governments to consolidate their priorities. In his opinion he did not despise them as evils, but as the paramount administrative reaction to a changing society. Weber saw it necessary to analyse the features of the countries practicing bureaucracy. Firstly, there is a hierarchy in the chain of command in which the top bureaucrat has the decisive opinion and authority flows in a top-down fashion. There is also division of labour and specialization in which every person is entitled to his or her role. A set of rules well-established rules are evident and these must be followed strictly within the organization as well as a set of goals that the organization looks forward to. Furthermore, hiring and promotion of individuals is based on merit with no favours given to friends and family unless they have the qualifications. Performance is also judged by efficiency and how much work a person does. Weber perceived bureaucracy as an important tool in ensuring that things are done in a disciplined way. Hence, he concluded that rational bureaucracy is the key factor in effectiveness of modern business. Types of Rationality in Max Weber’s View. Max Weber’s types of rationality include; practical, theoretical, substantive, and formal. In practical rationality, Weber entitles lifestyles that observes and judges global activity in relation to the persons purely pragmatic and egoistic welfares as practical rational. Instead of involving patterns of action to aggressively influence the given schedules of day-to-day life on behalf of a complete value system, a practical rational lifestyle consents to given realities and estimates the most convenient means of dealing with the problems they present. Theoretical rationality involves a cognizant mastery of reality through the creation of gradually detailed abstract perceptions rather than through action. Subsequently, a cognitive conflict with ones experience succeeds here. Substantive rationality openly commands action into configurations. This occurs with reference to the past, present and probable “value postulate” but not with regard to a means-end problem solving tactics. Not just a lone value, for example positive assessment of wealth or of the success of responsibility, a value postulate points towards total clusters of values that differ in breadth, internal uniformity, and content. Therefore, this form of rationality occurs as an expression of mans natural capability for value-rational action. A practical rationality may be restricted, bringing together only a restricted area of life and leaving all others intact. For example, whenever friendship involves obedience to such values as allegiance, com- passion, and common support, establishes a substantive rationality. In all cases, the substantive rationality is considered to be a "valid canon"; that is, a unique "standard" against which realitys flow of unending empirical events may be selected, measured, and judged. As the perspectives characterized by value postulates can be, by standard, immeasurable, action may be ordered into patterns and, undeniably, into all ways of life in a limitless number of ways. Different groups, establishments, associations, political units, cultures, and nations are, in each era, commanded in terms of specific value postulates, despite the fact that these may be not readily distinguishable by their members and can be so essentially distant to the values of the social scientist that he can barely imagine circumstances in which they obtain validity. Formal rationality commonly relates to domains of life and a construction of control that developed specific and defined boundaries only with industrial development: most expressively, the fiscal, legal, and scientific domains, and the bureaucratic type of domination. While practical rationality every time shows a diffuse tendency to analyse and to solve monotonous complications by means to an end rational patterns of action with regard to practical self- interests, formal rationality eventually legitimates an analogous means-end rational design by reference back to generally applied rules, laws, or principles. To the extent that pure calculation in terms of theoretical rules reigns, resolutions are arrived at "without respect to persons." A coordination of action to prescribed rules and laws is equivalent to a dismissal of all uncertainty: diversity and calculation with regard to legislated regulations stand here rigorously opposed to decision making with regard to the individual qualities of persons concerned. Diverse personalities-even captivating ones-no less than differences with respect to status are exposed to the dictates of strictly rational procedures. The individual favour prearranged by the lord of a manor, for example, is completely unfamiliar to the "spirit" of bureaucracy action concerned with rationally analysable general rules and decrees pre- dominates here, and the selection of the most acceptable means for persistent observance of them. Strengths and Weaknesses of Rational Organizations One of such strengths of rational organizations is their ability to develop of the organizational functions especially at the time when insufficient resources are accessible. For instance, The Ford Motor Company, acts as a purely rational organization relating to division of labour. It highlights improved level of efficiency in its overall operational process. This strength of the company certainly assisted in growing the company into the most successful car manufacturers globally (Price, 2004). Another strength is that such organizations have well-ordered planning models, forming coordination amid the operational units and developing the procedures utilised in decision-making (Shafritz & et al., 2011). For example, scientific management related principles eventually supported Ford in maximizing its strengths in the form of establishing well-ordered planning models by making the labour forces to work in multiple operational segments rather than being focused into a particular task (Prince, 2004). Rational organizations have a weakness of failing to address workforce individual requirements and weakening human components in the orientation with the operational procedures. This is a crucial measure that should be addressed from the organizational` development perspective. Another weakness is that the decision of promoting division of labour by the organizations lessen human components by the ways of creating mix-ups in the operational procedures and rising complexities in the overall process. Most rational organizations tend to focus on control instead of empowerment, failure in designing a structure for making further improvements and most crucially raising the probability of emerging ethical issues among others (Shafritz & et al., 2011). The Types of Social Action and Rationality Webers fourfold typology of social action include effectual, traditional, value- rational, and means-end rational action. Instead of depending for their existence on societal, cultural, or historical constellations, these types of social action stand "out- side of history" as anthropological traits of man. Against 19th-century French anthropology, Weber argued that man did not acquire his "rationality" with the Enlightenment and that individuals in all previous epochs were not incapable of rational action. On the contrary, even everyday actions of "primitive" man could be subjectively means-end rational, as, for example, when specific religious rituals were performed with the aim of receiving favours from a god. In Webers eyes, this pure exchange relationship as it existed in sacrifice and prayer was identical in form to the modern businessmans calculation of the most efficient means to acquire profit. Likewise, the fact that the values in pre-modern societies diverged widely from modern values did not, for Weber, call into question the basic capacity of man to orient his actions rationally on the basis of values. On the other hand, traditional and effectual action were not uprooted and swept away to the degree that modernization movements advanced. All four categories become obvious in a diversity of rationalization procedures written at all levels of communal and civilizational process. Long-standing rationalization procedures are seen to be entrenched in values rather than in wellbeing. The domination of real, theoretical, and recognized rationalization processes in modern Western societies suggests huge penalties for the type of individual likely to live in these civilizations. Numerous considerations of Webers understanding of "rationality" have been unsuccessful to stress its multivalent incarnations. Still other authors have limited their examinations of Webers notion of "rationality" and its manifestations in historical rationalization processes to specific spheres of life, such as the religious sphere. Weber himself is largely responsible for the lack of clarity that surrounds his analyses of "rationality" and the interplay. Taylor’s Theory of Scientific Management Taylor acknowledged that there is some level of suitability in some people with regard to particular jobs. He did this by comparing pig iron as a regular occupation that can be handled so well by a very stupid person who is calm but does not fully understand the science behind the make-up of the pig iron. On the other hand, the man who is mentally alert and intelligent to perform such tasks as of pig iron is entirely not suited to do such tasks. The conclusion is that the individual best suited to handle pig iron is unable to understand the science behind it. This theory of matching workers to a particular job fails to account for two intrinsic difficulties. Firstly, it neglects distinct differences like the most ingenious way of working for one person may be unproductive for another. Secondly, it neglects the fact that the financial preferences of workers and their administration never match hence this always lead to bitterness and disruption by the employees. Both difficulties were acknowledged by Taylor not only completely talked about by superiors who only saw the need for improvements on efficiency; Taylor furthered his arguments by saying that science can only be workable if the worker benefits in such a way that the more the production, the higher the pay. Generally, the disadvantage of rationalization and bureaucracy is "Iron Cage" in which they regard “Man as Machine.” Taylorism in its pure version perceives workers as mere machines that can be more effective by eliminating unnecessary efforts. Nevertheless, this methodology rejects the notion that human beings have personal needs, relational problems and the problems brought about by making jobs efficient thus reducing the relaxation time of workers. This is the main reason why labour unions arose in the present day. Conclusion Rational organizations can be related with certain management ideas and concepts to assist modern business corporations to accomplish their respective predetermined targets at large. In this regard, such management based ideas and concepts mainly entail principles relating to scientific management, formation along with the promotion of bureaucracy and division of labour among others. These management ideas have been duly considered for discussion in this particular essay. With due consideration of the above stated management based ideas, the strengths of seeing organisations as purely rational have been determined as establishing well-ordered planning models and developing the overall decision-making procedure among others. On the other hand, the varied weaknesses of seeing organisations as purely rational have been ascertained as failure towards ensuring long-term sustainability, failure in designing a structure for making further improvements and extreme reliance over control instead of empowerment among others. Thus, in conclusion, it can be stated that the sustainability and the scope of gaining maximum profitability for the organisations mainly rely on the above portrayed strengths as well as weaknesses that result from considering organisations as purely rational configurations. Work Cited Bennis, W. G., 2001. The Coming Death of Bureaucracy. Management Review, pp. 19-24. Barros, G., 2010. Herbert A. Simon and the Concept of Rationality: Boundaries and Procedures. Revista de Economia Política, Vol. 30, Iss. 3, pp. 455-472. Grey, C., 2008. A Very Short Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Organizations. SAGE. Kalberg, S., 2010. Max Webers Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 1145-1179. Nozick, R., 1994. The Nature of Rationality. Princeton University Press. Prince, R. G., 2004. Division of Labor, Assembly Line Thought - The Paradox of Democratic Capitalism. Articles. [Online] Available at: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/division_of_labor.htm Simon, H. A., 1972. Theories of Bounded Rationality. North-Holland Publishing Company. Smith, A., 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. A. Strahan and T. Cadell and W. Davies. Shafritz, J. M. & et al., 2011. Classics of Organizational Theory. Wadsworth. Seigel, H., 1997. Rationality Redeemed?: Further Dialogues on an Educational Ideal. Psychology Press. Taylor, F. W., 1911. Fundamentals of Scientific Management. The Principles of Scientific Management, pp. 1-71. Read More