An important insight into the principles which are
felt to underline the process of management can be gained by a brief
xaminations of organizational theories. These theories or approaches – some of
which date back to the late nineteenth century – represent the views of both
practicing anagers and academics as to the factors that determine
organizational effectiveness and the influences on individuals and groups withn
the work environment. Broadly speaking, these approaches can be broken down
into three main categories: the classical approach, the human relations
approach, and the system approach. Since the last of the these encompanies
themoel presented in Chapter 1, particular attention is paid to this
perspective.
The classical
approach
Classical teories of organization and management
mostly date from the first half of the twentieth century and are associated
with the work of writers such as Taylor, Fayol, Urwiick, and Brech. In essence,
the calssicists basicalluy viewed organizations as formal structures
established to achieve a particular number of objective under the direction of
management. By identifying a set of principles to guide managers in the design
of the organizational structure, the proponents of the classical view believd
that organizations would be able to achive their objective more effectively.
Fayol, for example, identified fourteen principleswhich included the division
of work, the scalar chain, centralization and the unity of command – features
which also found expressions in Weber’s notion of “bureaucracy”. Urwick’s rule
or principles similarly emphasized aspects of organizations structure and
operation- such as specialization, co-ordination, authority, responsibiti and
the span of control – and were presented essentially as a code of good
management practice.
Within the classical approach special attention is
often given to two important sub-grouping, known as ‘scientific management’ and
‘bureaucracy’. The former is associated with the pioneering work of F.W. Taylor
(1856-1915) who believed that scientific methides could be attached to design
of work so that productivity could be increased. For Taylor, the systematic
analysis of jobs (e.g. using some form of work study technique) was seen as the
key to finding the best way to perform a particular task and thereby of
achieving significant productivity gains from individuals which would earn them
increased financial rewards. In Taylor’s view, the responsibility for the
institution of a scientific approach lay with management under whose control
and directions the worker would operate to the mutual benefit of all concerned.
The second sub-group, bureaucracy, draws heavily on
the work of Max Weber, (1864-1920) whose studies of authority structure
highlighted the importance of ‘office’ and ‘rules’ in the operation of
organizations. According to Weber, bureaucracy – with its system of rules and
pricesdure, specified spheres of competences, hierarchical impersonality –
possessed a degree of technical superiority over other forms of organizations,
and this ecplainsed why an increasing number of enterprises were becoming
bureaucratic in structure. Nearly 50 years after Weber’s studies were first
enterprises throughout the world and is clearly linked to increasing
organizational size difficult to imagine how it could be otherwise.
The human
relations approach
Whereas the classical approach focuses largely on
structure and on the formal organization, the huan rlation approach
tomanagement emphasizes the importances of people in the work stuation and the
influences of social and psychological factors in shaping organizational
behavior. Human relation theorist have primally been concerned wth issues such
as individual motivationa keadership, communications and group dynamincs and
have stressed the significance of the informal pattern of relationship which
exist ithin the formal structure. The factors influencing human behavior have
accordingly been portrayed as a ey to achieving greater organizational
effevtiveness, thus elevating the ‘management of people’ to a prime position in
the determinations of managerial strategies.
The early work in this field is associated with
Elton Mayo (1880-1949) and with the famous Hawthorne Experiments , conducted at
the Western Elctric Company (USA) between 1924 and 1932. What these experiments
basically showed was that individuals at work were members of informal to
explaining individual behavior. Later work by writers such as Maslow, McGregor,
Argyris, Likert, and Hertzberg, continued to0 stress the importance of the
human factor in determining organizational effectiveness, but tended to adopt a
more psychological orientation, as exemplified bu Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’
and McGregor’sTheory X and Theory Y’, Maslows central basic physiological
requirement (e.g. food, sleep, sex) through safety, love and esteem, to
self-actualissation (i.e. self-fulfilment); progressing systematically up the
hierarchy as each lower level need is satisfied. To McGregor individuals at work were seen by management
as either inherently lazy (Theory X) or commited to the organisatiosn
objectives and often actively seeking responsibility (Theory Y). these
perception consequently provided the basis for different styles of management,
which ranged from the coercive to the supportive.
McGregr’s concern with management syle is
reflecte in later studies, including
Ouichi’s national of “Theory Z”. according to Ouichi ne of the key factors in
the success of Japanese manufacturing industries awas their approach to the
management of people. Theory Z organizations were those which offered long-term
(often lifetime) employment, a share in decision-making, opportunities for
training, development and promotions, and a number of other advantages which
gave them a positive orientations towards the organizations. For Ouichi, the
key to organizational effeveness lay in the development of Japanese-style.
Theory Z environment, adapted to western requirements.
The systems
approach
More recent approachs to organizations and
management have helped to integrate previous work on structure, people and
technology, by portraying organization as socio-technical systems interacting
with their environment. Under this approach – that bacme popular in the 1960s –
organizations were seen as complex systems of people tasks and technologies
that were part of and interacted with alarger environment, comprising a wide
range of influences. This environment was frequently subject to fluctuations,
which on occasions could become turbulent (i.e. involving raid and often
unpredictable change). For organization to survive and prosper, adaptation to
environmental demand was seen as a necessary rewuirement and one which was
central to the process of management.
The essence of the systems approach has been
described in Chapter 1, but is worth repeating here. Organizations, including
those involved in business, are open systems, interacting with their
environment as they convert inputs into output. Inputs include people,
finance,material, and information, providred by the environment in which the
organizations exists and operates. Output comprises such items as goods and
services, organizations, idea and waste, discharged into the environemnent for
concumption by ‘end’ or ‘intermediate’users and in some cases representing
inputs used by other organizations.
Systems invariably comprise a number of sub-system
through which the process of conversion or transformation occurs. Business
organizations, for examples, usually have sub-systems whichs deal with
activities such as productions, marketing, accounting, and human resource
management and each of these in turn may involve smaller sub-systems (e.g.
sales, qulity control, training) which collectively constitute the whole. Just
as the organization as a systems interact with its environment, so do the
sub-systemn and their component elements, which also interact with each other.
In the case of the latter, the boundary between sub-systems is usually known as
an ‘interface’.
Whilst the obvious complexities of the systems
approach need not be discussed, it is important to enphasise that most modern,
views of organisations draw heavily on the work in this area, paying particular
attention to the interactions between people, technology, structure and
environment and to the key role of management in directing the organisation's
activities towards the achievemcnt of its goals. Broadly speaking, management
is seen as a critical sub-system within the total organisation, responsible for
the co-ordination of the other sub-systems and for ensuring that internal and external
relationships are managed effectively. As changes occur in'one part of the system
these will induce changes elsewhere and this will require a management response
that will have implications for the organisation and for its sub-systems. Such
changes may be either the cause or effect 'of changes in the relationship between
the organisation and its environment, and the requirement for managers is to
adapt ro the new conditions without reducing the organisation's effectiveness.
Given the complex nature of
organisations and the environmenrs in which they operate, a number of writers
have suggested a'conringency approach' to organizational design and management
(e.g. Lawrence Woodward, Perrow, Burn, and Stalker). In essence, this approach
argues that there is no single form of organization best suited to all
situations and that the most appropriate organisational structure and system of
management is dependent upon the contingencies of the situation (e.g. size, technology,
environment) for each organisation. In some cases a bureaucratic structure might
be the best way to operate, whilst in others much looser and more organic methods
of organisation might be more efective. In short, issues of organizational design
and management depend on choosing the best 'combination in light of the relevant
situational variables; this might mean different structures and styles coexisting
within an organisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment