There have been several theories that explain the structuring, working and direction of an organisation. The earliest or the most basic of these was the Classical Theory of Organization which was the stepping rock for other theories to develop. The basic standard ‘s on which it functioned are:
Production and economic growing were the chief ground that set up an organisation
There is ever a best manner to transport out the organisation ‘s undertakings for accomplishing the above ends.
Division of labour and specialisation leads to maximising production.
The Classical Organization Theory includes:
Scientific direction attack
Scientific direction was put frontward by Frederick Taylor in late eighteenth century. The scientific direction attack helps in accomplishing efficiency, standardisation, specialisation and simplification by appropriate planning and direction of work and workers. Its chief characteristics were:
Replacing the old traditional methods of work with scientifically analyzed occupations to find the best manner to execute a undertaking.
Scientifically choosing the workers and so preparation and developing each worker instead than to allow them develop themselves.
Cooperation amongst the workers to guarantee that the work is done harmonizing to the scientifically analyzed program.
Appropriate division of the work among directors and workers, so the directors perform the planning, forming and determination devising procedure and the workers perform their occupation they are best fitted for.
The chief drawback of this attack was that it brought humdrum in the work. The nucleus occupation dimensions of accomplishment assortment, undertaking individuality, undertaking significance, liberty and feedback were all losing from the image of scientific direction.
The administrative direction attack by Henry Fayol was built on personal observation experience of what worked good in footings of organisation. Harmonizing to him the chief maps of a director are-
To calculate and be after
To organize activities
To command the public presentation
Fayol besides put frontward the 14 rules for effectual direction:
Division of work ( specialisation )
Authority and duty
Integrity of bid
Integrity of way
Subordination of single involvement
Wage of forces
Stability of term of office of forces
Esprit de corps
Neoclassic theories put accent on single or group behaviour and human dealingss for finding productiveness. These theories ‘ chief construct was that an organisation is an adaptative system which has to set itself harmonizing to the alterations in its environment. These theories include systems attack, A theA socio-technical attack, A and theA eventuality or situational attack.
In contrast to the classical theories, most theoreticians believe that there is no 1 best manner to form. What makes the difference is the organisations size and construction, its engineerings, and the demand in the market and how good all these fit among themselves for effectual operation of an organisation. This is known as the Contingency Theory. A Lawrence and Lorsch in 1967 argued that the sum of uncertainness and rate of alteration in an environment impacts the development of internal characteristics in organisations.
Therefore at the terminal of the twenty-four hours the most of import facet for an organisation to work efficaciously is non to happen a best manner to work efficaciously but how good an organisation can accommodate itself to the turning demands, continuously altering demands and demands ( non merely pecuniary, technological resource but human resource excessively ) , and takes into consideration SWOT and PEST analysis for optimal operation.
Have public and private organisations been similar in encompassing the different organisational theories? What has helped or hindered these organisations from to the full encompassing these constructs?
Ans. The operation of private and public organisation is wholly different ; one works for the net income and the other for rendering services to the society, severally. So, they have a different demand, demands and ends to accomplish. Thus there ‘s no manner that both sort of organisation embracing similar organisational theories ; because there is no best manner to execute a undertaking. But I think that private organisations have been more successful in seting into action modern organisational theories, as they need to last a more hard competitory universe.
Public organisations chiefly function to carry through the demands of the community. So they do non necessitate to vie with any other organisation populace or private to be in the market. I am non stating that public organisations run on the classical theory of the organisation construction, they do follow the neoclassical theories but non taking it to an advanced degree. We can state that public organisation follow the basic regulations and private organisation run on most advanced regulations and maintain working towards happening the stairss for reconstituting themselves to be in front in the market.
Discuss Max Weber ‘s statements about power and authorization. What does he state about obeisance in an organisation? Based on his statements, would public decision makers more readily follow elective city managers or metropolis directors?
Ans. Max Weber considered the construct of bureaucratism as an ideal signifier for organisational construction. Weber definesA power as the chance that one histrion in aA societal relationshipA will be in a place to transport out his will despite opposition, irrespective of the footing on which this chance rests ( From: The theory of societal and economic organisation by Max Weber ) . Weber ‘s construct ofA authorityA is to analyse the operation of power i.e. authorization exists when there is belief in legitimacy of power. He distinguishes organisation on the footing of legitimacy of the power into three:
Charismatic Authority – The personal appeal of an person plays an of import function. This is based upon the sensed extraordinary features of a individual. One illustration that I can draw out is of Mr. Rama Rao, a ace star, who went to go the most powerful Prime Minister of Andhra Pradesh, India.
Traditional Authority – It is legitimated by the holiness of tradition i.e. the right to govern is passed down largely through heredity. In words of Weber “ The creative activity of new jurisprudence opposite traditional norms is deemed impossible in rule ” .
Rational Legal Authority – This depends on the legitimacy of the formal regulations and established Torahs of an organisation. This is the most widely recognized signifier of authorization in this present universe. Government functionaries are a good illustration for this.
Harmonizing to Weber, power educes obedience through force or by the menace of force. On the contrary, in legitimate authorization single acquiesce that authorization is exercised upon them by their higher-ups. Therefore in a rational legal authorization a legal codification or set regulations can convey obeisance to the members of the organisation. Obedience is derived non from the individual administrating the jurisprudence, but instead to the impersonal order that installed the individual ‘s authorization.
From my point of position, public decision makers should follow metropolis directors as they have been put over this place by their makings and their accomplishments following the standard established Torahs or regulations of the authorities. They are governed upon by same regulations of the authorities. Besides, Weber has argued that directors should non govern through arbitrary personal caprice but by a formal system of regulations. Peoples can be blinded by the perceptual experience of the extraordinary features of an person to be a campaigner for the place of Mayor, non recognizing the effects it may hold in a long tally. So, I strongly believe that public decision makers must readily follow the metropolis directors, because he is the individual selected by the abstract Torahs of the system and works for the best involvement of the organisation within the bounds of that jurisprudence.
In an organisation, what is more of import: the system or the workers? The formal or the informal procedures? What is the ideal type of organisation?
Ans. If we think organisational, as whole, point of position both the workers and an efficient system are necessary for optimal operation of an organisation. Workers put in their labour to do the end product of the organisation at a steady rate, but until it is governed by a good efficient system, it can travel haywire. So I think an efficient system is the most of import portion. The employees, as a homo, have built-in inclination to dislike their occupations and seek to calculate out ways of avoiding it. This is where a system plays a critical function by directing their attempts, actuating them, commanding their actions and modifies their behaviour to suit the demand of the organisation.
With the absence of this active intercession the employees can go inactive or immune, therefore they are to be controlled, rewarded, persuaded and punished if required. Organization maps best when all its constituents work together, therefore the employees need to work as a group, and a good organized system helps them to accomplish this. The system helps toA set up goalsA for your section. It helps pass on the ends of the work unit or enable employees to take part in puting the ends, to develop more employee ownership of the ends. Employees are straight related to the end product of the organisation, they are the 1s who have the penetration of the occupations and what alterations can be good. When the system gives the employees the power to do determination sing this by intrusting them, actuating them, so the employees have more religions in the organisational direction system and experience to be more actively involved in the procedure and can experience their part.
Organizations besides work on formal and informal procedure. A formal organisation is established upon certain defined regulations and ordinances. In this, the responsibility, duty, authorization and answerability of an person are clearly defined. Alternatively in an informal organisation is a self-generated filled with sentiment, spirit, feelings, desire, whim etc. of the individuals with similar thought. A formal organisation plants for accomplishing the clearly defined aims i.e. to salvage the organisation, do it stable, develop and spread out, gain net income and supply public services etc. On the reverse, an informal organisation is an association of similar minded individuals ; inspired by the feeling of friendly relationship, celebrity, regard, safety of occupation etc. Formal organisations have a well defined hierarchal construction with lower degree, in-between degree and upper degree working in coordination.
As described by Max Weber bureaucratism is the most ideal signifier of an organisation. Like a formal organisation it governed by knowing, abstract regulations which govern the determinations and action. It is a good structured organisation with ends and aims set at the upper degree and inherited down from in-between degree to the lower degree of the direction hierarchy all working in coordination with one another ; subsidiaries follow the orders of the higher-ups but they have the right to appeal.. Jurisdictional countries are clearly defined and activities are distributed as official responsibilities. Personal and office belongingss are separated. The functionaries are appointed based on the making, non elected.
Extra Credit – 10 Excess Points
Is organisational behavior a zero-sum game between directors and workers? Can members from both groups to self-actualize at the same clip?
The Human Side of Enterprise by Douglas McGregor