Contingency and Other Organizational Theories - Essay Example

The sociology work that has been done outlines a number of concepts, theories and models basing on the issue of management and the employees; they describe in a better manner the relationship between employees and the management (Allingham, 2002). Many organizations have realized that there can never be a flow in the production without good relationship between managers and employees. The role of managers is to guide the employees, and hence conducive workplace environment should be provided that allows execution of these guidelines (Tompkins, 2005). Due to this, the organizations have come into a conclusion that a number of management theories as well as practices should be incorporated into organisation operations. In addition, some of these theories, models and concepts are geared towards improving the productivity of the organization. Apart from that, they are also important in enabling efficient management of the organization as well as enhancement of the financial rewards. Challenges are also emerging on daily basis, and one of the best ways of overcoming them is through incorporating management theories and functions into the organisation. It is very evident that most of the organizations experiences problems of scale because they are based on the formal rules as well as the issues of hierarchy levels. However, this may not apply or rather work in organizations where complex division of labour and the formal rules meaning that the issue of bureaucracy may not apply or even work in such a case. In order for any manager to maintain a smooth and a good organizational culture, he or she should adopt some very important organizational theories. The theories that any organization may adopt must provide a strong link between the employees and the management (Allingham, 2002). This means that they have to be structured in such a way that they provide great motivation and courage to the employees for improving their working skills and productivity. In addition, the theories also must infuse some aspects of the organization like values, experiences attitudes and beliefs. This is because organizational theories are the instrument that every organization uses to cause motivation among its workers and employees (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). These theories comprises of beliefs and ideas of which each member of that organization must comply with to achieve the objectives and the goals of that particular organization. This then means that the theories must be made in such a way that they are acceptable to all the members of the organization whether in the management or employee level. One of the most important aspects that should be considered in implementing organizational theory is the issue of behaviour patterns in the organization (Tompkins, 2005). This is the reason as to why most of the organization organizes for seminars and workshops for their employees so that they can be informed about the organizational theories that are implemented by the organization; this is a great advantage because it enables the workers to change their behaviour accordingly to be in line with the organizational goals and objectives. This also enables their behaviour to add credibility to their work as well as increase ethical value of the organization, adding its popularity hence giving it a platform for competition. It should be noted that any theory that an organization opts to implement, must be thoroughly scrutinized by the professions before critical decision about its creation is made (Hatch, 2006). This is to ensure that it works for the betterment of that particular organization. A better strategic vision is therefore very important to ensure that all the cultural changes that are made are geared towards the wellbeing of that organization. Another importance of organizational theories is that it brings understanding between the employers and the employees (Allingham, 2002). As a result, it then leads to development of loyalty and trust within the organization. If for example in a particular organization, the team leader in a department does not cope well with the rest of the employees, then it means that there is need to investigate and find out the root cause of the problem. By doing this, the organization will be ensuring that the theories that have been set do not just benefit the organization but also are taking care of the welfare of the employees (Scott, 2007). A number of theories that are used by organizations to achieve the above benefits and especially the issue of creating a good relationship between the employer and the employee are discussed in this paper. The two theories namely contingency theory and rational choice theory tries to link relationship that exists between employees and employers (Tompkins, 2005). Contingency theory is a form of behavioural theory. It originated from the work that was done in the year 1960s, and it was aimed at reducing the work that was done in the level of systems approach up to the level of management (Allingham, 2002). It explains that there can never be a more appropriate way of organizing corporations, making decisions or even leading companies (Amaral and Uzzi, 2007). It shows that the best way of accomplishing the above is so much dependent on the external as well as internal situations that surround the organization. It was developed for filling up the loopholes that were left by the theories earlier discovered by Weber’s bureaucracy and Taylor’s theory of scientific management (Hatch, 2006). The main failure that the theory was trying to cover up was the fact that they had neglected that fact that the external and the internal environment of any particular company or organization influenced organizational structures and management styles. These two factors are the ones referred to as contingency factors hence the name contingency theory. The theory provides one of the best ways of offering leadership in a given organization or company (Allingham, 2002). This form of theory has best thrived in the organizations that are mainly involved in broad generalization as well as formal structures. Most of these are involved in the use of different organizations. A man called Woodward John originally invented this form of perspective. He argued that the technologies are directly responsible for determining the differences in such organization’s attributes like authority centralization, span of its control and rules as well as procedures formulations (Tompkins, 2005). The following are the main ideas that are involved in the theory: Organizations or companies are systems that really need very careful management to satisfy as well as all its needs that are internally represented to be able to adapt itself to any form of environment. It also shows that there is no single way or rather best way of achieving organization. This is because the best or rather the most appropriate way is dependent with the task or rather with the environment a parson is dealing with. Management must always be concerned with the issue of alignment achievement as well as good fits. It is very important to note that different types of organizations are required depending with the type or form of the environment. As per the above factors, this type of theory has proved to be most influential form of theories in the organization. It was also the theory that focuses on the issues of reducing the infinity concerned with the information in the level of system approach up to the managerial level. It is mainly concerned with solving the problems that are involved in the managerial level of any given form of organization (Tompkins, 2005). Some of these issues involve organizational bottleneck, leadership issues and structure of management (Hatch, 2006). Therefore, the contingent was the solution that was sort for those problems. According to the explanation that many theorist offered, was that the managers who practiced this form of theory had no particular way of resolving the organizational problems that were occurring. This then left the managers without any freedom to do anything they felt like doing. This theory is best for management because of the fact that it does not give the leaders of the organization freedom to do what they want. In other words, their reactions and actions are dependent with the environment or rather the situation in which the organization finds itself. This is very advantageous because not every decision that a manager makes is simply dependent on the reasoning or feelings of the manager but with the requirements of the situation. Another advantage of this kind of theory is the fact that its application determines the level to which the organization achieves its goals in terms performance. This theory still has been under critics due to some of the shortcomings that it has presented to the organizations that have been using it. An example of a company that experienced such shortcomings is a manufacturing company based in the southern part of England. Although, there was a degree of contingence that existed in that particular company it was discovered that only the managers who choose the most appropriate method of solving the existing problems were able to get the best result. This means that contingency does not limit any one as far as decision-making is concerned but the best outcome depends on the best choice one makes (Hannagan, 2005). In addition, the success of this particular form of theory is dependent with other factors like the division of labour, the goals that have been set by the managers as far as the organization’s success is concerned. This is in short to mean that the success of the theory is very much dependent with the variables of the organization (Allingham, 2002). This is whereby the issue of the relationship between the employees and the management comes in. if there is a good relationship that is inexistence between the two parties then it means that there will be great success experienced by the organization. Rational choice theory is a theory of organization that is also referred to as rational kind of action theory or rather the choice theory. It is very much rooted in the issue of economic and social behaviour. It is actually one of the theories that are advised in the school of microeconomics. The name itself rational explains that in nonprofessional’s language the theory has to do with the wanting the best and not the least. This explains the reason as to why many of the people in the microeconomic field are assumed to be using this form of theory. It is also a theory that is widely in application in the field of political science, philosophy and sociology (Allingham, 2002). This is because in this theory the main aim or objective is to look for the most cost effective way of accomplishing a goal but without looking at the worthiness of that particular goal. This theory uses a particular form of definition that involves an individual making a choice by the drive of cost effectiveness. This means that the decision that is made based on this theory is done after considering the cost verse as the benefits that one will get if personal advantage was to be considered. Therefore, in this form of a theory, the decisions are whether sane or crazy, are rational. This form of theory explains that a particular person makes a decision not after considering the expressions that are presented by the inexplicable needs or want in the specific economic or social environments. The involved parties do not consider the psychological, sociological and biological roots that causes the criminal or any people perform a crime. In other words, the most consideration here is the issue of the benefit that makes them to do that kind an action (Allingham, 2002). This means that the benefit that the person doing that kind of action gets in very extrinsic in the sense that they only do it for the sake of the preventing being caught. This is whereby some of the criminals are never self punished by their own guilt or rather their remorseful nature but by the fact that they are counting the price, they will have to pay for committing that particular crime (Jones, 2008). This kind of theory if practiced in the business is not very good. This is because of the fact that it lacks the aspect of consumer motivation. At the same time, it is not the best way of structuring or rather managing an organization. This is because a leader of a particular organization will not achieve the goals effectively by practicing form of theory. This is because it does not reflect any form of consideration to the employees. Reason being that the manager would be looking at the extrinsic benefits that will be gained by doing the right thing rather than the intrinsic. This kind of theory has revealed that most of the actions that are evidenced are due to a form of exchange. This is whereby some people exchange time for money, some status for a form of responsibility and many other forms of exchanges (Jones, 2008). The reason as to why people engage in this form of theory is that they believe that as far as their rewards out ways or rather is equivalent to the cost. The value that is in the effort, reward or even the punishment is then measured with reference to the utility it has on an individual. Mainly the managers who are very corrupt in nature therefore adopt this form of theory (Allingham, 2002). This is because their actions are in the form of buying the employees. Some of the strategies such managers pulls to their employees are the issues of motivation in the form of finances while they are overworking them. This theory has been under criticism (Hatch, 2006). This is because they say they cannot predict the behaviour of a human being. In an organization, the employees under the management of a person leading using this form of a theory are likely to be under pressure due to the fact they cannot predict the mangers reaction. This is because this kind of theory does not give room for the employees to have certainty as far as some issues are concerned (Braha and Bar-Yam, 2007). In other words, this kind of theory brings about a great difference between the employees and the managers in that the employees are always with doubt and uncertainty of whatever the managers could decide to do next. On the other hand, there are advantages of using this kind of theory as far as the issue of prediction is concerned. This is if the manager is very consistence in it use (Allingham, 2002). It means that there could be behaviour of a manger formed by the repeated actions because of decisions based on this kind theory. This then means that the employees can be able to predict what the manager may decide the next time such an incidence occurs which is ton their advantage (Robbins, 2004). Another very important advantage of this kind of theory is the fact that it is very useful to the sociologist that could be interested in making any social analysis in an organization (Bligh, 2006). This is because it provides a mathematical formality in the form of mathematical application, which allows them to derive intended results for their own models, which in normal circumstances would be so hard to derive (Hannagan, 2005). Organizational theories are very important tools as far as the management of any organization is concerned. This is because they are the ones that determine the behaviours to be expected in a certain organization. Another very important fact is that the help insetting goals and objectives of the organization. Despite the fact that they are very important tools, no single theory can be applied on its own to yield effective results because challenges are also arising on daily basis and one of the best ways for overcoming them is through practicing some of the management theories and functions. It is very evident that most of the organizations experiences problems of scale because they are they are based on the formal rules as well as the issue of hierarchy offices. However, this may not apply or rather work in organizations where complex division of labour and the formal rules may never apply at all. This means that the issue of bureaucracy may not apply or even work in such a case. References Allingham, M. 2002. Choice Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University press. Amaral, L.A.N. and Uzzi, B. 2007. Complex Systems—A New Paradigm for the Integrative Study of Management, Physical, and Technological Systems. Management Science, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 1033–1035. Bligh, M. 2006. Surviving Post-merger ‘Culture Clash’: Can Cultural Leadership Lessen the Casualties? Leadership, vol. 2, pp. 395 - 426. Braha, D. and Bar-Yam, Y. 2007. The Statistical Mechanics of Complex Product Development: Empirical and Analytical Results. Management Science, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 1127–1145. Cameron, K. & Quinn, R. 2005. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. New York: The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series Hannagan, M. 2005. Management concepts and practice. England: Prentice hall. Hatch, M. J. 2006. Organization Theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives, 2nd Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, I. 2008. The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture. New York: Encounter Books. Robbins, S. 2004. Organizational Behavior - Concepts, Controversies, Applications, 4th Ed. New York: Prentice Hall. Scott, W. 2007. Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. New York: Pearson Prentice Hall. Tompkins, J. 2005. Organization Theory and Public Management. New York: Thompson Wadsworth. Read More