Organisational Analysis With Reference to Social Work - Essay Example

Organisational Analysis and social work Number Department Introduction The theories of choice for the discussion are the theory of bureaucracy and the theory of human relations. The fact that these theories are comprehensive enough to explain the dynamics of social and welfare work inform the choosing of the two theories. The theory of a bureaucracy has it that for an organisation to run or function well, there have to be systematic processes and hierarchies as a way of maintaining order, optimising efficiency and eliminating excesses. For this cause, a bureaucracy can be defined as an organisational system that uses systems and procedures, division of labour (or separation and designation of functions) and a hierarchical structure in executing controls over an entire organisation’s system, on the one hand. On the other hand, the human relations theory is premised upon the belief that employees are motivated by financial rewards and social factors such as the feeling of professional attainment, a sense of belonging among the staff and taking pride in one’s work or profession. The human relations theory stems from empirical studies that were carried out in the 1920s and the 1930s. This theory posits that attitudes, leadership styles and relationships are important in the existence, performance, stability and progress of an organisation. The theories above are important in social and welfare work, as shall be seen in the ensuing discussion. History and Development on the Use of Information in Bureaucratic and Human Relations Theory According to Beddoe & Maidment (2009, pp. 75-8), bureaucratic structures have existed as early as 3,500 BC, though the phrase bureaucracy is dated back to the mid 18th century AD and is attributed to Jacques Claude M. V. de Gournay. Despite the negative stereotypes that have been used to describe and disqualify bureaucracy, sociologists such as Max Weber have always contested the idea that ideal bureaucracy aims at achieving and maintaining speed, precision, knowledge of the files, unambiguity and continuity, so that bureaucracy enjoys more superiority over other forms of organisational or management theories. For this, the need to enhance proper handling of information became more pronounced alongside characteristics such as ruled-based operations, hierarchy and technical competence, after the input of Max Weber. The advent of the human relations movement on the other hand dates back to the 1930s and was a culmination of studies on the effects of motivation, employee satisfaction and social relations on industrial productivity. According to Murphy (2012, p. 511), the handling of information after the pattern set by human relations theory emanates from studies that have been made on the Hawthorne Effect. Studies on the Hawthorne Effect studies the phenomenon wherein employees modify or improve their behavioural response and mannerisms in lieu of the response to the nature of changes in the environment. Studies in the Hawthorne Effect established that the novelty of having research carried out and increased attention from the studies could heighten productivity, temporarily. Henry A. Landsberger is credited for these studies, as they are a result of experiments that he had carried out between 1924 and 1932 at the Hawthorne Works in Chicago (Getha-Taylor, 2010, p. 173). As a result of the foregoing, Landsberger and other forerunners of human relations theory such as F. W. Taylor and Elton Mayo began to visualise and theorise how organisational processes should be patterned in a manner that is focused on fostering friendlier, more personal and healthier human relations. In this light, instead of focusing on how information can be relayed through organisational processes and broken down into units that are relevant to office systems, human relations and organisational processes, managers applying this theory will place emphasis on employees’ competence to handle information processes, employee remunerations and the democratization of the workplace and intra-organisational cohesion (Netting & O’Connor, 2003, p. 23). On the contrary, Douglass, Hoffer & Hoffer (2012, pp. 709- 712) divulge that the systematic use of information in a bureaucratic setup was catalysed by the advent of technological determinism. As reductionist theory, technological determinism argues that technological development extant in a specific society drives and informs the society’s structure and cultural values. Because of the influence that technological determinism has had over the handling of information through bureaucratic systems, bureaucracies use technology to follow a consistent, predictable and traceable process which surpasses matters of socio-political influence. In respect to the foregoing, in bureaucratic setups, technology is an important part of determining how an organisation should be run. This is because technology determines how information is passed from one department, office or sector and managed, analysed, used and kept. The Difference between Bureaucracy and Human Relations Theory in Handling Information The difference between information systems in a bureaucracy and in an organisation that is patterned after human relations theory is that the former may be characterised by bureaucratic red-tapes and protocol. Conversely, the organisation patterned after human relations theory will share information vertically because management policies are formed by the executive body before being shared with the rest of the organisation for ratification. On the contrary, bureaucracies will observe the flow of information hierarchically because: management policies are formed by the executive body before being shared with the rest of the organisation for ratification; and every office is guided by specific protocol when it comes to information sharing (Baines, 2006, pp. 22). Again, it is important to note that when it comes to information management, bureaucratic organisations are merely interested in conveying information on policy and strategic issues. The information in this case is directly related to details pertaining to how organisational synergy and processes can be expended towards the attainment of specific organisational goals. However, this is not the case with organisations that follow the human relations theory. In organisations using the human relations theory, employees will be taught to use their soft skills. This is because, organisations will need their employees to successfully convey information or communicate, be open to other people’s feelings, be able to read and interpret other people’s emotions and feelings and be in a position to solve conflicts and to broker resolutions. This approach is informed by the belief that through the acquisition of these skills, managers and the executive branch of the organisation, employees and clients are more endowed to observe, consolidate and improve on more compatible relations (Jones & May, 1999 & Roff, 2004, p. 230). Again, Netting and O’Connor (2003, pp. 16-8) contend that while information systems in a bureaucracy are segmented into portfolios and offices, information systems in human relations theory aim at making communication a two-way engagement: from the employee to the CEO and vice versa. This means that bureaucratic systems of dealing with information are more protracted than in organisations dealing with human relations theory. This is because, bureaucracies are characterised by red-tapes and information may have to flow according protocol. It is also notable that information-handling and use after the bureaucratic pattern appears to lean towards deontology, as opposed to the human relations theory which seems to be more anthropocentric (geared towards human good). Vestiges of deontology in handling and using information in a bureaucratic setup is underscored by the fact that specific offices or portfolios and their occupants are to interact with and act on the information as is specified by the spelt-out duties, roles and responsibilities. In deontology, an action is ethical as long as it is done as a duty. This resonates with bureaucracy where every office is supposed to interact with information according to the duties spelt out in it, at one end. At the other end, employees interacting with and acting on information has his welfare being taken as a sacrosanct part in organisational production. This is because, in human relations theory arrangements, employees may be required or encouraged to form natural groups where social aspects of life and organisation supersede functional organisational structures. Relevance to Social Work Practice for Both Perspectives Both perspectives have relevance in social work and social welfare to a large extent. In the case of human relations theory, emphasis is placed on the application of science in the management of employees in the workplace so as to bring about efficiency through productivity of labour. In this case, this theory seeks to find and develop the social person as a way of excising unrealistic performance targets and unethical behaviours and practices. This reverberates well with the activities that social work and welfare projects which require strong interpersonal skills and cultural competence. At the same time, the consideration of the employee as a social person remains instrumental in warding off burnouts and frustrations at the workplace. This is because, the employee as a social person is accorded a realistic performance target and a wider accessibility to information and tools of communication (Parton, 2008, 166-8 & (Jones & May, J., 1999, p. 34). The immediately foregoing seems to accord human relations theory advantage over the bureaucratic theory of management. This is because, unlike the human relations theory which considers the employee as a social person, the bureaucratic theory of handling information is not anthropocentric. On the contrary, the bureaucratic theory of information considers the office (in which a person acts) that passes information. Emphasis is placed on a particular office which plays specific roles in passing, receiving, storing, retrieving and acting on information. This means that bureaucrat arrangements detach an individual from the entire task environment. The crux of the matter herein is that a detached employee cannot favourably or effectively interact with the target group in social work or welfare projects. According to Stets and Burke (2000, pp. 223- 5), because the employee is viewed as a part of an entire programme, he is bound to engage in roles pertaining to social work or welfare projects out of duty. As opposed to him, his counterpart in an organisation patterned after human relations theory is likely to interact with information relevant to social work or welfare projects as fun and chance for him to get more acquainted with the nature of his and how to relate well with clients (Tsui & Cheung, 2004, pp. 438-9). According to Little (1995, p. 66), dealing with information in bureaucracies is also protracted and this complicates social work and welfare initiatives. This is especially the case when information has to flow according to protocol and the bulky paperwork that characterise bureaucracies are brought into consideration. Bureaucracies are therefore more susceptible to running a large number of personnel compared to organisations patterned after human relations theory. Human relations theory is interested in having the gap between the CEO and the entire personnel shortened. This reduces processes and paperwork and makes social projects and welfare programmes easier, cheaper and less strenuous (Healy, 2002, pp 480). References Baines, D., 2006, “If You Could Change One Thing: Social Service Workers and Restructuring” Australian Social Work, 59 (1), pp. 20-34 Beddoe, L. & Maidment, J., 2009, Mapping Knowledge for Social Work Practice, Cengage, Melbourne, pp. 70-85 Douglass, Anne, Hoffer, Jody Gittell & Hoffer, Jody, 2012, “Relational bureaucracy: structuring reciprocal relationships into roles” The Academy of Management Review, 37 (4), pp. 709 - 733 Getha-Taylor, Heather, 2010, “Human Relations 2.0” Public Administration Review, 70 (1), pp. 170 -172 Healy, K., 2002, “Managing Human Services in a Market Environment: What Role for Social Workers?” British Journal of Social Work, 32 (5), pp. 480ff Jones, A. & May, J., 1999, Working in Human Service Organisations: a critical introduction, Longman, South Melbourne Little, P., 1995, “Records and record keeping” in Carter, P, 1995, Social Working, Macmillan, Hampshire Murphy, Raymond, 2012, “Nature, Social Relations and Human Needs” Journal of Critical Realism, 11 (4), pp. 510 – 514 Netting & O’Connor, MK., 2003, “The ever-changing landscape of organisation and human services”, in Organisation Practice: a social worker’s guide to understanding human services, Pearson, Boston, pp. 5-28 Parton, N., 2008, “Changes in the Form of Knowledge in Social Work: From the Social to the Informational?” British Journal of Social Work, 38 (2), pp. 53-269. Roff, S., 2004, “Nongovernmental Organisations: The Strengths Perspective at Work” International Social Work, 47 (2), pp. 202-212 Stets, Jan E and Burke, J. Peter, 2000, “Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory” Social Psychology Quarterly, 63 (3), pp. 224 - 237 Tsui, M. & Cheung, F., 2004, “Gone with the Wind: The Impacts of Managerialism on Human Services” British Journal of Social Work, 34 (3), pp. 437-442 Read More