Organizational and Management Theories - Coursework Example

Organizational Theories The current business environment Type here Organizational and management theories help in a better understanding and management of organization. It is important to have a clear understanding of organizational theories and behaviour so that we can relate to them to management. It has been identified that although, current organizations lay tremendous stress on looking at employees as organizational assets, they still fail to manage their employees efficiently. Effective management and success of organization depends on a clear understanding of the underlying paradigms of organizational theories and finding out the changes that have occurred and a clear understanding of the new business environment (Buchanan & Huczynski, 2004). Technical-rational approach to Organizations The technical-rational approach to organizations is the process of reducing actual practices to a set of particular competencies and revising and practicing them regularly for the purpose of learning and assessment. A technical-rational approach to organization identifies core competencies and then tries to build an environment supporting exchange of knowledge and a system that can measure performance and ensure quality. Technical-rational approach is a part of the classical school and scientific management and is often regarded as the bureaucratic organization studies. It is called so because people in organizations have a defined set of tasks and responsibilities. Moreover, organizations also have hierarchical structures of reporting in the classical approach, which means that employees report to one another and can also have management responsibilities. Each organization have their own set of rules and procedures for the completion of tasks, and the position of all the employees depends on their abilities and are judged on merit. Another important aspect of technical-rational approach to organizational studies is that all the employees are supposed to act in an impartial and unemotional manner with the well-being and goal fulfilment acting as the motivation. The economic growth along with increasing number of organizations also resulted in increasing the technical-rational approaches towards organization. As organizations continued to grow and expand in all directions, the number of jobs also increased as well as the requirement for specialized people expert in a single particular area. While the technical-rational approach to organizations gained tremendous popularity, it also had a number of disadvantages with a major one being the fact that employees would not be as effective if they perceive the rules and procedures as useless or unjustified, which would hamper the creativity and initiative of individuals. It was very easy for the top management to take decisions on issues in an organization that operated in a stable environment. Considering the fierce internal and external competition faced by an organization, the attitude and behaviours of the workforce need to support organizational goals in order for the organization to compete successfully. Hence, although the technical-rational approach became the foundation of most of the organizations, it has become less fashionable with time (Brooks, 2007). Proponents of the technical-rational approach The classical approach The classical approach to organizational study and development theorizes that the principles of management and organizational are strictly technical and have nothing to do with context of the matter. This means that the classical approach suggests that a certain set of workable principles could be applied to all organizations irrespective of their size, environment, products, or technology. The approach stresses on a ‘one best approach’ of organization, which is also known as the ‘structural universalism.’ The approach defines a clear mechanism of implementing control, allocation of jobs and responsibilities and organizational structure. It also specifies the need for a transparent and clear line of command resulting in clear hierarchical relationships, and a detailed job description. Although, the classical approach is still used for studying organizations, however, several environmental changes are necessary such as recognizing that size, product/services, technology has an impact and it needs to be accounted. Hence, two organizations with different operating backgrounds cannot have the same set of rules and procedures. It is not a generic process completely. Moreover, the kind of workforce, besides finding talent and retaining it is also an important consideration for organizational success. Other factors that classical approach fail to realize is the importance of flexibility and innovation for any organization and its work force. Change is a constant thing in the workforce and organizations running on technical-rational approach with classical theory in the background are not well equipped to handle changes and go along them as they happen (Brooks, 2007). Scientific Management Organizational development and analysis relies heavily on rationality and when we talk about organizations, we discuss them as being a single entity ignoring their human element. This leads us to the scientific approach of work management, which is also a proponent of the rational-technical approach. Scientific management and classical approach both focus on structure, scientific management focuses on defining the structure of the job while classical approach focuses on laying out a structure for the whole organization. The main idea behind scientific management is finding efficiency gains, better productivity, and overall improved organizational performance as a result of the practices brought forward by scientific management. Scientific management suggests that there should be a clear line dividing planning jobs, managing them, and the implementation of tasks and the worker’s role in it. There should be merit process that can identify the suitable person for a particular assignment and jobs should be standardized with a clear description. Management should be able to identify a particular way of doing a certain job and everyone should do it in that particular way. Many modern organizations have adopted scientific management to increase efficiencies, reduce production time and costs, as well as increasing the productivity of the labor force. However, one major disadvantage of scientific management is that it hampers the creativity and innovation of the employees, which essentially should be worked towards improving and encouraging. Moreover, although a number of modern organizations have adopted scientific management for their corporations to improve productivity and overall performance, it is only suitable for organizations that are in the business of mass produced products having an assembly line sort of set up. In the modern business environment, scientific management of organizations has been rejected or reduced to a large extent and the current scenario is now more in support of more human and social interactions (Brooks, 2007). The current business environment The world continues to evolve and so does the business world. Organizations and organizational theories have also continued to change with time. The theories that worked in the past have now become more or less irrelevant due to the transformation of the external and internal organizational environment. The changes have taken place due to globalization of economy, ever increasing competition, customer-driven business markets, technological advancements, have all resulted in increasing the requirement for organizational flexibility. A number of new terms and concepts have emerged within organizations due to the expansion and power of public and private sector organizations, new technology, along with other socio-economic and political factors. One of these relatively new concepts is of corporate social responsibility and business ethics. The organizations of today stress a lot of importance on ethical behavior on the decisions and actions that organizations take and managers need to be aligned with the ethics. The organizations operating today publish a code of ethics so that everyone in the organization is aware of the dos and don’ts (Mullins, 2009). Changes in organizational theories in the current business environment We have earlier discussed several organizational theories and their evolution with time, we find that each of these theories have become somewhat obsolete or irrelevant with the development and growth of the overall business setup. If we compare and contrast the distinct characteristics of organizations that has changed with time, we can come up with 7 major changes that have become evident with time (Mullins, 2009). Employees and Labor – Back in the olden days, organizations used to regard employees, or the people as an interchangeable or replaceable part of the machine. Organizations today lay a lot of stress on their people and make an effort in sustaining the valuable people of their organization. Historically, the decision makers of the organization were the managers and the job of people below them was to execute without question. The situation improved somewhat with employees giving some thought into their actions. The organizations operating in the 21st century believe in consultation; managers and employees decide and implement. Information and knowledge – information and knowledge of an organization was completely under the management’s control and it was not distributed at all or distributed to very specific entities. Nowadays, majority of the organizations do knowledge management so that there is maximum information sharing to all the levels. Purpose of existence – Survival was the main instinct in all organizations operating in the 19th and the 20th century along with wealth and social status being the second best reasons. The organizations of the 21st century do not exist for any of these reasons; they exist because of a long term strategic objective, which is the part of a life plan. Conflict – Conflict was a major source of problem in an organization and all of them made sure to avoid it at all costs. The situation improved when it become less of a problem and organizations began to tolerate it, however, the situation today has completely changed and now organizations encourage conflict as it helps in bringing out possible flaws and weaknesses of any plan. Power – the organizations of the 19th century had a top down approach with all the power concentrated right at the top. In the 20th century, the situation changed with limited power given to the people lower in the hierarchy. Today, mostly all organizations follow a decentralized diffused division of power. (Mullins, 2009). References Mullins, Laurie J. (2009). Management and Organizational Behaviour. Pearson Education India. Retrieved on November 12, 2011 from Brooks, Ian (2007). Organisational Behaviour. Pearson Education India. Retrieved on November 12, 2011 from Buchanan, D. & Huczynski, A. (2004). Organizational Behavior, an introductory text. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Read More