Past Present and Future of the Organization Theory and Public Administration - Term Paper Example

Organization Theory and Public Administration: Past, Present, and Future Theories have been in use for the analysis of organizational structure through historical frameworks. Scholars around the globe have been in the forefront in developing theoretical frameworks to explain and forecast the future trends of organizations; public as well as the private. The theoretical frameworks serve to interpret the reality as it is within the organizational structures. Theories therefore simplify and explain the happenings around the globe and in this context, explain the organizational management. The theories as they are do not always have a direct interpretation and may at times necessitate critical thinking to make effective analyzing and understanding an organization framework possible. Organizational theories have been evolving over time and in this paper we analyze specific theories that have been instrumental in describing organization management with attention to managers, employees, and people internally as well as outside the organization. Marxist and Neo-Marxist Theory Among other concerns that are notable in the Marxist organizational theorem are autonomy and freedom, hierarchy, power, authority, dominance, contradictions and crisis, revolution, equality ad inequality as well as change. The Marxists theories are hence direct concerns to the role of organizations towards the general welfare of the society pertaining to governance, individual development as well as social change. According to Karl Max, organizations are constantly changing due to constant tensions as well as changes due to development, and when there is resistance to organizational changes, the qualitative changes result to social economic changes as well as systems of governance. This therefore implies that the society is equally in constant changes in organization as well as administration as effected by economic and revolutions socially. Social organizational changes promotes retention of the good past elements while the bad ones are lost. Moreover, new elements are created through the adoption of the change in the society though they equally develop own contradictions. This in turn results to further changes and this presents the dialectical contradiction that describes the positives s well as the negatives of change within the society. This historical view explains that the event of complimentary changes supports each other while the contradictory leads to more crises and as a result, the revolutionary changes keep on. Capitalism, as is the focus of Karl Max illustrates that the forces of capital dictate the overall organization of a society’s economic systems as well as social systems. Nevertheless, a critical conflict is painted between capital and labor in that the two pursue own benefits as against common goals. This therefore according to Marx portrays the modern organizations as instruments of domination, control, repression as well as capital accumulation and thus capital has to ‘cooperate’ in order to get her basic or equitable share. This framework is seen to be an exact replica of the formal organizational frameworks where the management frameworks comprise of the wealthy capitalists who have power over the means of production. Just as the society experiences the change, organizations undergo through the same changes with the political, social as well as economic as their parameters. The dynamics in the management as well as the organizational operations trigger the changes that are observable within the organizations. Internal tensions and contradictions trigger organizational changes where quantitative changes bring about the qualitative changes. The process through which the new changes take over from older systems is in itself a cause of contradictions and negations, which necessitate change. Organizational Bureaucratization, depersonalization as well as formalization within the United States of America in the twentieth century brought about an increase in informal organizations. Therefore, according to Marx, there exists struggle in matters of power between the administration of an organization and the subordinates, which lead to the contradictions as well as conflicts, which actually trigger change within organizations1. The Theory of Alienation The theory of alienation according to Marxists holds that there is usually a sense of separation between the employees or other persons within an organization besides the employers (capitalists). According to Marx, there is usually high level of division of labor, specialization impersonalization and general work standardizations within then modern organizational start-ups, which deny the employees the chance to feel any attachment with the work they do. The members in an organization therefore become just as parts of machines, which cannot identify themselves with the outcome of their labor. The division of labor and specialization makes the persons just as inputs at varying production levels and thus they tend to feel alienated from the work or organization. However, despite the clarity of the phenomena as observed within the modern day organizations, there lacks notable efforts to address the scenario within the organization; this theorem therefore is easily identified with since the inception of the capitalistic systems of production2. Classical or Formal Organizational Theory Unlike the case with Marx who criticizes capitalism, the classical theorists such as Webber reason that the bureaucracy as observed and capitalism are necessary for production and must be encouraged. Webber is against the traditional charismatic type of frameworks and supports the modern institutionalized organizational structures, which are strategic in establishing hierarchy and change of command. The formal governance structures and the labor specialization are ideal according to Webber for maximum efficiency in the modern organizations. He reasons that bureaucratization within a society is directly related to the level of industrialization; where highly industrialized societies are equally highly bureaucratized. This in turn results to high levels of efficiency and control within a society. This therefore explains the reason of bureaucratization of most modern world organizations for the purpose of efficiency3. Scientific Theory by Taylor The theory is based on maximization of internal efficiency with the principles of work standardization, disparity of managerial functions as against the operational functions as well as the overall maintenance of effective managerial control. It relies on wholly on management through scientific principles. Material rewards to workers are the basic tools emphasized by the theory for motivation of workers for efficiency to be realized. According to Taylor, the time-motion studies should be the guide used by the management in deciding what is to be done, when and by whom?4 Leadership Organizational management entails leadership and as such, the success of any organization relies much on the type of leadership adopted as well as the leadership structure in place. Waldo projects that there exists two main kinds of leadership structures, which revolve surround bureaucracy, and democratic kings of leaderships. Whereas democracy insinuates the leadership structure ‘by people’, analysts reason that the principle is in itself a contradiction in that defining the ‘people’ is in this case vague. The principle of democracy owes its origin from the Greek people though they had a little experience of the same for the reason of their population limitation. The Greek democracy equally suffered criticism in that though they presumed to be exercising the principle, it acutely fell short of the practices of the principle as it is. The Greek were said to have practiced tribalism, social-ethnic elitism besides restricting participation into political exercises by women and slaves. The ‘Greek democracy’ revolved around the political arena and as such had no connection to the ethical, social or even economic concern. From the modern history, democracy in political facet refers to secret or voting without coercing, free association as well as expression, broad suffrage, a considerable freedom and the guarantee to personal rights. Liberty as well as equality (referred to elsewhere as human worth and human dignity) is basic frameworks of the principles behind democracy. However, despite the political perspective of democracy, a wider inclusivity of the Principe should be adopted to explain the social economic aspect with the interpretation shifting from the public administration only to be inclusive of the private sphere as well. Bureaucracy on the other hand borrows the meaning from two broad categories, the popular pejorative as well as the descriptive analytical democracy. While holding the general attributes of the description of bureaucracy constant, there exist basic lines of disparities from different schools of though. For instance, the French culture interprets and understands bureaucracy in the inherent attributes of formalism, impersonality and general bound-ness by rules. However, the modern bureaucracy revolves around the pillars of expertise, specialization as well as separation in terms of office work and the domestic work. Other depictions of the bureaucracy reveal a traditional perspective that it represented a more advanced civilization. In modern economies, democracy as well as bureaucracy was favored by the class development of the bourgeoisies as against class nobilities. Actually, Webber writes in support of the hierarchy as the bureaucracy supports it in that it stands against the principles of equality, discipline as well as supervision, which stands contrary to liberty as a principle. In his writing, Webber was instrumentally asserting that bureaucracy presented the most rational mode of organizational framework5 . Values of Bureaucracy Bureaucracy forms the formal state spirit where the purposes of a state are transferred to be the purposes of the bureaus and the purposes of the bureaus becomes the state’s purposes. A basic feature is however the personal interest supremacy as against the states as exchanged in pursuit of personal career development. The ‘formalism’ seeks to advance the personal interests for the few bourgeoisies and their career development at the expense of the majority of the subjects6. The practical illusions as painted by Marx show uninteresting facets of the principles as regards to public administration, motivation as well as performance. Nevertheless, according to Weber7, bureaucracy as is applied in modern day context illustrates the empowerment of office bearers within administrative rankings within organizations through rules and regulations. Regular duties as stipulated within the organizational frameworks, the regulations / power to give command as well as general methodological provisions as provided for characterize the modern day organizational bureaucracy. In public domain, the above provisions postulates bureaucratic authority while within private organizations, they postulate bureaucratic management. Office hierarchy as illustrated within the bureaucratic official framework within governments is desirable in that the higher government offices would be in a position to appeal to lower offices through well-laid institutional frameworks and vice versa for effectiveness. Documentation is a predominant feature in this hierarchical framework, which are often well preserved for reference within other managerial frameworks. Through the principles, general guidelines exist to govern or guide the office bearers within the bureaucratic management systems in private as well as within the government frameworks. In such areas as the political elections, the office bearer derives power from the bottom up framework as against other office bearers who ascend into office through imposition by a superior power or authority. Bureaucratic organization has diverse benefits as seen through the ease of communication, speed and efficiency of passing command, un-ambiguity, precision as well as speed of data retrieval. Moreover, when bureaucracy is established within an organization or the public domain of government framework, it is hard to destroy. The modern state has characteristically been taking the direction of bureaucratization though with variance from an organization to another and from a country to another. Secret sessions are other feature that characterizes the bureaucratic governance structure. The American public systems have therefore been instituted into the bureaucratic structure as the prevailing global perspectives takes shape. As seen from the discussion, despite the foregoing practices within the governance institutions, the effect of universal practices would be felt. In conclusion, the organizational management theories have been in existence and have gradually evolved over the evolutionally stages and continues to evolve even in the future. The description of the various evolutionary theories is based on subscription to the various schools of thoughts as illustrated from above. The organizational structures as well as the social set-ups usually correlate in ways of administration as well as values. Social economic as well as political changes have been seen to emanate from internal forces of conflict and contradiction or even from the external environment. The dynamics observable in the changes ultimately necessitates continuous cycles of change as have been seen. Bibliography Farazmand, Ali, Chapter 2. Organization theory: from pre-classical to contemporary and critical theories-An overview and appraisal. Theory and Practice, 2002. Marx, Karl, The spirit of bureaucracy and beyond bureaucracy: the Paris commune. Part 1/classical problems. Waldo, Dwight, Bureaucracy and democracy: reconciling the irreconcilable? The enterprise of public administration. 1961. Weber, Max, Bureaucracy. Part I classical problems. Read More