Organizational Theories
Neoclassical systems theory and human relations theory are not far removed from classical organizational theory because of their acceptance of the Weberian model of bureaucracy.
Introduction
Economic theories have come in handy to explain the different behavioral patterns of firms and business organizations, and have, as result, made the understanding of the performance of firms a rather easy task. One of the many benefits that different theorists have afforded todays firm analyst is that they are able to base their views on different theories from the classical ones to the more recent neoclassical ones. The benefits of there being many organizational models explaining the behavior of both people and economic concepts have been, however, reduced by the fact that some of these theories work against each other and so fail to come to agreement on some of the organizations most critical behaviors (Modaff, 2007).
Whenever such a trend has been discovered, it is very hard to interpret organizational behavior unless a clear and comprehensive comparison of a number of theories is done. On the one hand, it has been very difficult to come up with ways of convincing people about the relevance of the classical models, with the neo-classical theorists seeking to pour water on most of what was done earlier on (Shafritz, 2008). This has created a situation in which it is almost a matter of age as opposed to content which is used to rate the suitability of a theory in explaining a business organization concept.
Classical Organizational Theories
The ancient economists worked hard enough to come up with explanations of how different organizations operated and how they could be expected to deals with different emerging issues. Using these classical theories, the behavior and traits of the organization under different economic, social, and political climates were expected to be elucidated. It was imperative to have every organization understood as far as its operational models were and how it influenced other players in the industry. The Weberian model of the bureaucratic organization is one such a theory by a renowned classical theorist.
The Weberian Model of Bureaucracy
Max Weber was very instrumental in projecting what a bureaucratic organization was. Indeed, he presented a theory which showed a bureaucratic organization as one having a repetitive schedule which although possibly tiring and monotonous and quite often than not causing a lot of organizational dysfunction by way of inability to function optimally, was embraced by the management (Scott Gerald, 2007). The bureaucratic organization is prone to so much following of protocol that it matters very little what the overall business objectives of the organization are because these too have to be achieved only in the context of the laid down procedures and rules.
The treatment of staff, including hiring and firing of employees, strictly follows the law of the organization and each law is followed faithfully (Rusaw, 2001). The analogy of Weber of the bureaucratic organization was so much critical of these procedures and of the negative consequences it produced that he himself had to agree to the fact that this theory was more for an ideal organization as opposed to a real one because most of the defining factors inherent in such a bureaucratic organization would collapse upon application to a real organization.
The Neoclassical Theories
The neoclassical theorists have differed greatly with the analogy of a Weber. They tend to be very critical of his approach at the nature of the organization, and criticize the theory as one that can never hold water in the modern times. In the modern times, the main drive of the organization is largely to make and make it fast enough with the available few resources- a profit. As a result of this, every organization seeks to work as hard as it can to achieve this motive (Scott Gerald, 2007). Given the fact that the motive of organizations have not changed over time, it only remains that the theories applied in the past failed to put into clearer perspectives the fact that organizations had far more factors to consider and a lot of strategies to consider to necessarily stick to a list of predetermined procedures.
The Human Relations Theory
The human relations theory, for instance, does in no way condone the fact that an organizations will stick to very strict rules in order to operate. That is actually a far-fetched analogy and as although this may happen to a rather lesser extent, it remains largely inapplicable. According to this theory, the organization is so much dependent on its human resources. The employees of an organization are very important so important that it is very difficult, almost impossible for the organization to run efficiently without their input (Modaff, 2007). Given this fact, every organization has realized that its survival that comes from success in business operations is a direct function of the output from employees. The more productive the employees are, the more the organization benefits. Therefore, organizations have done all within their ability to ensure that they motivate their employees (Modaff, 2007).
Among the motivational methods used include ensuring that the working conditions are good and that each one of them is able to work without any unnecessary pressure (Scott Gerald, 2007). This does not mean that they are no rules to be followed but it that every rule is formulated to promote harmonious and good working relations in the organization. Unlike in the classical theories where these rules are to be strictly followed, the new theorists emphasize on the need for the regulations in the company to work for the good of the employees. Max Weber could not as much as clearly address the issue of applicability of his theory as far as the many legal bureaucracies was concerned (Modaff, 2007). In fact, unlike the human resources model, it was a matter of the employee working for the law and not the law working for mankind. This is a feature that is very much consistent in neoclassical theories of the organization.
The fact that the focus is never on the keeping of the law but on ensuring that the employee enjoys hisher work makes the real difference between classical and neo-classical theorists. Among other provisions of the human relations theory are that the satisfaction of every employee is very essential and is a determinant of the output level and the quality of the this output, communications that are open and supportive go along way in ensuring that employees are satisfied, and the productivity of employees is determined by the nature and kind of working environment (Modaff, 2007). In addition, this theory has it that the management of an organization has the responsibility of ensuring that all the people who work under them relate well and in a friendly manner with them in order for the employees to feel close enough to the organization and to be motivated. Finally, the theory also emphasizes the need to have the organizational needs of every employee met, and if possible, the organization can seek to ensure that even some very critical personal needs of the employees are met as well, especially those which are perceived to have the potential of affecting the work of the employee (Shafritz, 2008).
As all these principles can attest, the human relations theory really emphasizes on the need for organizations to forge good working relationships with their employees. This theory focuses on aspects that bring about enhanced organizational performance as opposed to those which are likely to limit this as is the case with Webers theory of organizational bureaucracy. If an organization was to focus on developing and improving its human resources, then the need for unnecessary controls and procedures is eliminated as each employee will be focused on doing what heshe is assigned (Modaff, 2007).
On the other hand, however, the human relations theory tends to agree with some aspects of classical theories (Rusaw, 2001). In essence, it is not every classical theory that collapses or fails when applied to modern organizations. The modern organization, while applying itself to the use of the neoclassical theories, also follows aspects inherent in the classical theory. In this respect, Weber was right when he said that his theory was intended for more of an ideal organization than a real one capable of finding applicability in modern times. The modern organization therefore has consistently followed the human relations theory while at the same time ensuring that all organizational bureaucracies are followed (Shafritz, 2008).
It is common to see employees hired and fired in accordance to laid down procedures, and engaging in many other activities following what the regulations demand. For instance, people get promoted on merit and sometimes on the basis of their experience and time taken in the organization. Prior to sacking any employee, they might be given a first and second warning, and every organization has a hierarchical leadership structure that is followed religiously a matter has to be handled at the lowest level and only if no solution is found ought it to be pushed higher (Scott Gerald, 2007).
The Actual and the Real Situation
Classical theorists have been able to do a lot to lay the foundation for our understanding of the various economic theories about the organization. These men and women who wrote in the ancient times when it was not really easy to come up with the kind of information that they have presented to us did the modern learner and organization theorist a lot of favor. The link between the two divides- classical and neoclassical, however, has remained rather weak. The neoclassical theorists writes so much based on what the behavior of the organization is in the modern times, while the classical theorists based all research on the early firm. Because one can not effectively and decisively make a stand regarding whether or not there is a close correlation between classical theorists and neoclassical ones as far as the analogy of the organization is concerned, it is critical to understand the possible changes that might have taken place to the organization over time. According to modern economists like Adam Smiths, the firm has been more or less the same over time. In his case, the theory of the firm is as applicable to todays organization as it was to the one in the 15th century. It remains only true, then, the organization has not changed at all. Therefore, although it has been proved that modern organizations still apply aspects of the classical theory such as the Weberian model of bureaucracy, this application is so limited and where it is applicable, it is only for the purposes of reinforcing the neoclassical models. For instance, organizations are nowadays repealing most of their rules that have to do with protocol and order, and instead, only those deemed very important are being retained. Nowadays even the lowest ranked employee in the most successful organization will have direct access to the highest ranked executive officer, a sign that protocol is becoming increasingly ceremonial.
In addition, employees are only pushed to follow rules that are for their own safety, rules that promote and enhance mutual well being as opposed to those that alienate them (Rusaw, 2001). I do believe that it is critically important that everyone understands the role played by classical theorists in coming up with the neoclassical ones. On that basis, it is worth giving them credit for a work well done to elucidate the theory of organizational behavior. However, that is the furthest it can go. Beyond it, the classical theories cannot have any meaningful application to the modern organization. No organization wants to be a puppet of a set of regulations and formalities that are clearly taking away than they are adding to the organization. In this respect, it is very important that every organization only applies or uses approaches at business that are capable of ensuring success. In essence, if it can deliver, then a strategy will be good. Therefore, the organizational classical theories and the neoclassical ones are as different and divided as the sky and the earth are.
Conclusion
It is an interesting phenomenon to note that most organizations in modern history are slowly getting away from classical theories and operating more in line with what has been recently agreed upon as the best theories for organizations. Rather, the classical theories are finding more application in organizations. In certain instances, though, it is becoming a common phenomenon too to come upon cases where a kind of hybrid system is applied in the organization, with some classical as well as neoclassical concepts being applied. This has meant that there is no way that one can dismiss any theory or model based on its age. Those economist and theorist of the classical age were no less qualified than the present ones.
What is key is that each specific model ought to be critiqued with respect to a particular organization, and the results will prove which one best applies to it. For instance, the Weberian model of a bureaucratic organization - one of the most popular classical theories - still finds application in modern organizations. However, its use is increasingly becoming diminished and all that is remaining of its application is in conjunction with other models. On the contrary, the use of neoclassical theories such as the Human Relations theory has become very common. On this basis, I believe that the classical theories are very much different from neoclassical ones.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment