Development of the Theory of Multidimensional Organization - Coursework Example

The Multidimensional Organisation Theory Introduction Every individual subsist in an organisational world; practically, all of us are born in an organisation. However, the definition of the concept of ‘organisation’ is constantly confused with other social collectivises such as small groups, family units, mobs and so on. Some social scientists such as (Scott 1992, p.10) distinguished that “most analysts have conceived of organisations as social structures created by individuals to support the collaborative pursuit of specified goals”. Likewise, Talcott Parsons (1956) differentiate organisations from other social collectivises through emphasising that organisations have some functions and objectives. Similarly, Donaldson (1995) supported the idea that organisations are established and preserves in order to achieve specific intentions. This goal-oriented or active perspective regarding organisation indicates that organisations are meeting places of individual efforts to meet objectives that could not be otherwise mate through solitary action. Nevertheless, to say organisations are goal pursuit is to some extent problematic, and there is a large collection of literature that deals with the model of an organisational goal and whether or not the construct carries great weight. For instance, several organisations have members or employees who either is not aware with the organisation’s mission statement or if they have substantial knowledge of it, they do not essentially support it. An actual example is the goal of most publicly managed corporations in several developed nations which is profit maximisation or the capitalisation of shareholder value; this corporate objective in contrast with the concerns of the many employees who are more focused on their job security than they are about revenues. On the other hand, Pfeffer and Salancik emphasised that “organisations are... a process of organising support efficiently to continue their existence” (1978, p. 24). Organisational continuation receives focus as an objective since survival must be constantly achieved and is by under no circumstances habitual. March and Simon (1958) maintained that organisations make available encouragements for social actors to take part in them and as a return acquire contributions that become motivations for others. Together with this perspective, an organisation is workable and survives only as long as the incentives – inputs equilibrium is positive. Adequate contributions and effort is also necessary to sustain the organisation. Subsequently, organisational survival is more difficult to realize than the survival of some other social networks because assets and energies must be disposed in order to get the operation going. For example Individuals must be hired; resources must also be mined from the environment… Mostly, organisations have at least a single goal, which is the survival if not the improvement of the organisation. Individuals’ welfare and status are often at least fairly interconnected to the interests and standing of the organisation in which they are an employee, creating some cohesion of interests to keeping the organisation functioning. Hence, it is safe to assume that organisations are more likely than other social networks to uphold an aim of survival, have more obviously distinct, differentiated, and protected limitations, and frequently have some formal relationship with the state that acknowledges their existence. 2. Organisations from a Critical Theory Perspective A great deal, although not all, of the literature on organisations attempts to take in hand managerial problems, such as the process of enhancing organisational performance, the method to exercise more efficient control over behaviour in any work-related task or activity, the practice of creating and managing organisational culture, the course of action of recognising and developing leaders … The dominant literature available on the topic of organisational theory is the functionalist perspective, which states that, “The functionalist model has provided the foundation for most modern theory and research on the subject of organisation. The perspective, encourage/s us to see the role of values as a separate variable in the research process. Functionalist theory has typically viewed organisation as a problematic phenomenon, and has seen the problem of organisation as synonymous with the problem of ‘efficiency’ and, more recently, of ‘effectiveness’ (Morgan, 1990, p. 15). A language of competence and success and transactions, as far as the economic model is concerned, and in terms of environmental or other competitive regulatory systems, restrictions and pressure are often addressed in the organisations literature. Restraints, competition, and effectiveness imply that what has taken place is either a necessity of organisational survival or willingly favoured by those involved or both. The position of those victimized by the thrust for efficiency, the reality that some are underprivileged by organisational manipulations and the probability that social arrangements are and can be selected is often lacking from the arguments. Social scientist generally creates a sense of the concept that illustrates the efficiency of organisational structures, and makes recommendations on the basis of social science theories to reinforce managerial control. Therefore, in a sense, many of those who conduct organisation studies merely become ‘servants of power’ (Baritz, 1960). As a response to the dominance of the managerialist and functionalist perspective, a few of alternatives of critical theory have emerged to challenge traditional interpretation of organisations and to suggest other theoretical frameworks for understanding them. Critical theory which originated from institute of social research at Frankfurt University (Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2003, p.93) materialized in law, the humanities and the social sciences. One of the logical definitions of critical theory was declared by (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992, p. 435). “A fundamental claim of the proponents of CT is that social science can and should contribute to the liberation of people from unnecessarily restrictive traditions, ideologies, assumptions, power relations, identity formations… , that inhibit or distort opportunities for autonomy, clarification of genuine needs and wants, and thus greater and lasting satisfaction”. A good deal, although not completely all, of critical organisation theory originates from Marxist roots (Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2003, p.93) and there have been several of experimental studies in a Marxian orthodox that disputed a number of the accepted knowledge of organisation theory. Basically, the Marxist approach began in essence as an analysis of the rationalist views; Marxist dispute that organisational arrangements are not rational systems for performing task-related activities but rather, they are instruments of the power elite system established to take full advantage of control and profits. The division of labour and effort is not in fact to enhance efficiency and productivity but to ‘deskill’ workers, to put out of place good judgment from workers to managers and to produce simulated divisions among the labour force; then a hierarchical structure develops as a tool of control and a channel for the accumulation of capital. Moreover, human networks and reforms are misled due to the lack of challenge and exploitative nature of organisations. In reality, they rally round it to nourish it through taking for granted the importance of a genuine correspondence of goals (Scott, 1992). 3. Interpretive Perspective in Organization Studies The development of organisation theories was accompanied by consistent changes in approaches used by researchers to the study of organisations. Traditionally, structural-functionalist approaches dominated and affected consistently the development of organisational theories. However, in the course of time, the shift from structural-functionalist to cultural approaches occurred. In this respect, Turner played a particularly important part, since he was one of the first researchers who started to develop alternative views on organisations, which were different from traditional structural-functionalist approaches. In such a way, Turner had managed to change traditional approaches to organisational sciences and he had started to view organisations as cultural entities above all, which are susceptible to socio-cultural influences. Turner viewed organisations in the cultural context, in which their actors functioned that made organisations not simply institutions performing a set of functions, (Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2003, p.72-74) but rather a complex social institution, where people interact and where cultural exchange can take place. On the basis of his cultural approach to organisational theories, Turner had managed to develop qualitative research methods, (Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2003, p.72) including grounded theory, the concept of safety cultures, and notions of organisational symbolism. Due to his significant contribution to the development of organisational theories, Turner became one of the founding fathers of the Standing Conference on Organisational Symbolism. (Tsoukas & Knudsen, 2003, p.72) At the same time, the development of cultural approach stimulated the emergence of new approaches to organisational theories. As a result, Calas and Smircich went even further in their research of organisational theories and, on the ground of cultural approach; they started to shift toward postmodernism, which became one of the dominant trends in the late 20th century (Tsoukas and Knudsen, 2003). Thus, it is obvious that the cultural approach to organisational studies produced a significant impact on the development of organisational theories. 4. Organizations from a Modern Perspective Modern organizations contribute a invasive function in societies. Indeed, people nowadays subsist in an organized society in which nearly everything is getting done in an organizational setting. Since birth until death people have dealt with organizations, whether small or large, private or public. Organizations are built by aggregates of individuals, but the former frequently act autonomously from the latter; organizations even manipulate and influence its members, prevail over society, impede development or progress, advance growth and change, modify environmental circumstances, while satisfying human and societal demands (Farazmand 2002). Their function is multifaceted and twofold in characteristic; they can make probable the development and satisfaction of human needs, but simultaneously they can be a great hindrance to people’s realizing those same objectives. They are a powerful mechanism in governance and the advancement of democratic principles, hence improving human values. Yet, ironically, they may serve altogether as a fearsome instrument of domination and oppression (ibid). Organizations are essential to human and societal development and in addressing societal demands, but they can also be a weapon of destruction. Organization and civilization are mutually supporting; one could not evolve without the other. Since birth, organizations were undemanding in structure and administration, but as they developed and became large they as well as became complicated and intricate in structure and function, necessitating managerial capabilities and strategies beyond the understanding of many people (Presthus 1962). Nowadays, in modern societies, organizations mould principles and values, establish structural functions and standards in industrializing paths change and decide human fates, and carry out a broad array of functions coming from involvement and human fulfilment to breakdown and individual alienation. In fact, there are little things in modern society that either are achieved in the absence of organizations or, to state, are not influenced by organizations, private, public, even non-profit (Kreiner 1992). Is organization an entirely human occurrence? The answer is in fact, not. A swarm of other organisms, small and large, mobilize and live through organizations. Probably the only chief advantage human species possess over other living things is our intelligent capacity to progress in technology and strategies to promote growth and destruction. 5. Symbolic Perspective in Understanding Organizations Symbolic perspective is a major assumption which views large organizations as microcosms of the larger social structure. This design facilitates scholars to apply the concepts of socialization and interpersonal relationship to the examination of organizational behaviour. Organizations are truly tiny versions of society. They have hierarchy of status and of functions, a structure of norms and values, and a list of expected conduct or behaviour. They are possibly more relevant than most associations due to their concern with economic and status requirements, and with the restraint that comes out. Large organizations, then, are defined as “miniature social systems that meet many of the most basic needs of their members and expect in return loyalty and conformity” (Presthus 1962, 95). A limitation is required. Even though the values encouraged by society and its several conflicting organizations are probably indispensably contradicting, people should not confine their selves to an analysis of the socialization practices itself, and to the types of values that appear useful in terms of work organizations (ibid). In a fundamental nature, Sullivan’s interpersonal theory is focused on the individual and group dynamics, their social setting, and their important function in influencing personality. While psychiatry in the past had concerned itself chiefly upon the unique individual, Sullivan perceive of personality as primarily the outcome of social interaction (Farazmand 2002). This personality then will be the basis for the very survival or collapse of a particular organization. 6. Postmodern Perspective in Organizational Studies Several schools of organizational theory that emerged during the postwar period immediately give the idea of immense discontinuity. However, they contain a similar element that may rationalize the application of a collective term such as postmodern, which is the conflict with the notion that organizations are “technically rational machines” (Kreiner 1992, 37). The renowned and extensively used grand narratives in this discipline, underlining principles such as competency, predictability and conventionality, are with growing frequency and dogmatism questioned on hypothetical in addition to empirical grounds. The depiction of the modern organization is oftentimes laid out in mocking tones, “In the 1950s, most people worked in structured hierarchies, assigned to particular tasks, governed by the disciplines of the Corporation and the orders of top managers who reserved to themselves the strategic decisions, and those that balanced the competing requirements of the separate specialties. Those organisations resembled vast clock-work constructions, with a myriad of cogs turning on their spindles, mechanical, each oblivious of the machinery beyond its own sprockets” (Benton 1990, 8). The conflict with such a mental picture of organizations has assumed several distinct roles. For instance, the machine has been taken to pieces into locally justifiable parts; into political units; into unstable coupled and decoupled procedures. In other inputs, the concrete machine has disappeared into, for instance, cultural and ideological structures. Individually and in dissimilar manners these theories challenged permanent ideas on the definition of an organization (Kreiner 1992). They are not unified by the accurate arguments they create or by the repercussions they draw for the appreciation of organizations; and as such they do not provide a logical alternative to the traditional understanding. They are independently unified by the reality that they challenge, and hence they provide opposition. They are sustained by one mother, specifically, the doubt in the classical formulation of the organization as a “technically rational machine” (ibid, 38). Despite of their different ways, the shared goal of postmodernist organizational perspective is the overthrowing of the classical perspective. 7. Organisational Performance One of the most important objectives of organisation studies is not mainly to provide explanation and predict outcomes within organisations but also to be proficient in understanding the differential performance among organisations; some organisations do better than others. There is a substantial managerial curiosity in grasping the various aspects of performance, but there are theoretical causes as well for challenging to explain the phenomenon which shows that some organisations perform better than others. Logically, performance variations build pressures for reproduction. And also to the degree that competitive markets operate, both labour and resources will be extracted to more progressive organisations, in order that through time a rolling process of natural selection supports better performing organisations. Hence, recognising the elements affecting performance can guide organisations to better performance and attribute in the future. Particularly those features related with success will be more regularly embodied in the populace due to the courses of mimetic adjustment and natural selection (Pfeffer, 1997, p. 156). The examination of organisational performance is a wider topic and incorporates inputs from economics as well as organisation theory. The three most well-known organisational frameworks for understanding ‘performance-structural contingency theory and the literature on organisational design; the population ecology of organisations; with its focus on competition and natural selection as a way of understanding organisational births and deaths; and the recent work on the effects of management practices; particularly with respect to how the firm manages its human resources, on organisational performance typically measured in terms of productivity, quality, or stock market performance” (ibid, p. 156). The rapid development of organisational researchers within schools of business impacted the organisation studies. Declaring a discipline of organisation theory and placing it within schools of business result in tremendous efforts within the walls of the social sciences, mainly as part of sociology. The sociological focus point was replaced by a more managerial point of reference. In a sociological approach in examining organisations, the focus is on who controls and the outcomes of that control. On the other hand, the main inquiry emerging from a business school bends forward to more understanding on how to appreciate and hence formulate resourceful and competent organisations (Hinings & Greenwood, 2002). 8. The Prospect of the Organization Theory There are some major themes that surround the field of organisation studies and that illustrate attempts to understand these universal social entities. There are concerns given relatively little importance by the field even though they are in reality significant in the environment and cause some remarkable challenges for a number of threads of organisation theory. These concerns include the dynamic nature of organisation limitations, the employment networks, and the dimension allocation of organisations, modifications in managerial independence in proportion by changes in the principal markets, shifting organisational demography as the labour force composition alters and as organisations globalize and alteration in the extent of wage inequality in organisations and, as a repercussion, in many developed countries (Pfeffer, 1997). On the other hand, it is quite recognized in the field of organisational theory that relationships matter. Through establishing connections with one another and maintaining those relationships over time, individuals are able to perform their tasks together to accomplish tasks that they either could not done by themselves. The theory of social capital includes this principle. People associate themselves to others through a series of networks and they prefer to possess communal values and characteristics; to figure out that these networks represent a resource, they can be perceived as shaping a form of capital. Entrepreneurs and managers nowadays are venturing into the interest of social capital, because of two important elements that goes with it, which are information and influence. Social capital may ease access to information, which is then a crucial building block of entrepreneurial efforts. Social capital improves the relevance and quality of information exchanged through social networks. On the other hand influence is another benefit of social capital. Individuals extract responsibilities from others in the set of connections and control and this could be obligations at a later period. 9. Conclusion Organisation theory has more value and relevance than simply as a modern instrument for senior managers. It has much to contribute on the nature of contemporary public and private organisations, the process of organisational development, the methods of design, operation and adjustment and many more. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baritz, J. H. (1960). Servants of power. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press. Barkema, H.G., J.C. Baum and E.A. Mannix. (2002). “Management Challenges in a New Time” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 45, No. 5, 916-930. Baumol, W. J. ( 1982 ). "Contestable markets: An uprising in the theory of industrial structure". American Economic Review, 72, 1-15. Benton, P. (1990). Riding the Whirlwind: Benton Managing Turbulence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell . Buchanan, J. M. ( 1968 ). Demand and supply of public goods. Chicago: Rand McNally. Cable, J. ( 1994 ). Introduction and overview: Recent developments in industrial economics. In J. Cable (Ed.), Current issues in industrial economics (pp. 1-10). New York: St. Martins Press. Connoly, T., E.J. Conlon and S.J. Deutsch. (1980). “Organizational Effectiveness: A Multiple-Constituency Approach” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 5, No.2, 211-217. Denison D.R. and A.K. Mishra. (March-April, 1995). “Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness.” Organization Science, 6:2, 223. Detert, J.R., R.G. Schroeder, and J.J. Mauriel. (1993). A Framework for Linking Culture and Improvement Initiatives in Organizations. Copenhagen Business School and San Diego State University. Donaldson, L. ( 1995). American anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Downs, A. ( 1957 ). An economic theory, of democracy. London: Harper & Row. Farazmand, A. (2002). Modern Organizations: Theory and Practice. Westport, CT: Praeger. Hatch, M. J. (2006). Organization Theory 2nd ed. Oxford university press Hinings, C. & Greenwood, R. (2003). Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly , 47 (3). Kreiner, K. (1992). The Postmodern Epoch of Organization Theory. International Studies of Management & Organization , 37+. March, J. G., and H. A. Simon ( 1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Mason, E. S. ( 1939 ). "Price and production policies of large-scale enterprise". American Economic Review, 29, 61-74. Morgan, G. ( 1990). "Paradigm diversity in organizational research". In J. Hassard and D.Pym Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organization Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. ________, and G. R. Salancik ( 1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row. Presthus, R. (1962). The Organizational Society: An Analysis and a Theory. New York: Knopf. Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. ( 1990 ). Industrial market structure and economic performance (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Tsoukas, H. and C. Knudsen. (2003). The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory. Oxford University Press. Tullock, G. ( 1976 ). The vote motive. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Wirth, M. (1995). Industrial Organization Theory and Media Industry Analysis. Journal of Media Economics , 8 (2). Read More

Modern organizations contribute an invasive function in societies. Indeed, people nowadays subsist in an organized society in which nearly everything is getting done in an organizational setting. From birth, until death people have dealt with organizations, whether small or large, private or public. Organizations are built by aggregates of individuals, but the former frequently act autonomously from the latter; organizations even manipulate and influence their members, prevail over society, impede development or progress, advance growth and change, modify environmental circumstances, while satisfying human and societal demands (Farazmand 2002). Their function is multifaceted and twofold in characteristic; they can make probable the development and satisfaction of human needs, but simultaneously they can be a great hindrance to people’s realizing those same objectives. They are a powerful mechanism in governance and the advancement of democratic principles, hence improving human values. Yet, ironically, they may serve altogether as a fearsome instrument of domination and oppression (ibid).

         Organizations are essential to human and societal development and in addressing societal demands, but they can also be a weapon of destruction. Organization and civilization are mutually supporting; one could not evolve without the other. Since birth, organizations were undemanding in structure and administration, but as they developed and became large they as well as became complicated and intricate in structure and function, necessitating managerial capabilities and strategies beyond the understanding of many people (Presthus 1962). Nowadays, in modern societies, organizations mould principles and values, establish structural functions and standards in industrializing paths change and decide human fates, and carry out a broad array of functions coming from involvement and human fulfilment to breakdown and individual alienation. In fact, there are little things in modern society that either are achieved in the absence of organizations or, to the state, are not influenced by organizations, private, public, even non-profit (Kreiner 1992). 

         Is the organization an entirely human occurrence? The answer is in fact, not. A swarm of other organisms, small and large, mobilize and live through organizations. Probably the only chief advantage the human species possess over other living things is our intellectual capacity to progress in technology and strategies to promote growth and destruction.   

5. Symbolic Perspective in Understanding Organizations

The symbolic perspective is a major assumption which views large organizations as microcosms of the larger social structure. This design facilitates scholars to apply the concepts of socialization and interpersonal relationship to the examination of organizational behaviour. Organizations are truly tiny versions of society. They have a hierarchy of status and of functions, a structure of norms and values, and a list of expected conduct or behaviour. They are possibly more relevant than most associations due to their concern with economic and status requirements, and with the restraint that comes out. Large organizations, then, are defined as “miniature social systems that meet many of the most basic needs of their members and expect in return loyalty and conformity” (Presthus 1962, 95).  

         A limitation is required. Even though the values encouraged by society and its several conflicting organizations are probably indispensably contradicting, people should not confine their selves to an analysis of the socialization practices themselves, and to the types of values that appear useful in terms of work organizations (ibid).

In fundamental nature, Sullivan’s interpersonal theory is focused on the individual and group dynamics, their social setting, and their important function in influencing personality.

Read More