Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Classical theory of organizations
Neo classical organizational theories
Classical organizational theory relevant today
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Classical theory of organizations
Miles, J. A. (2012). Management and Organization Theory:A Jossey-Bass Reader. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. The book gives the insights of many worldwide used organizational theories. It offers a summary and analysis of classical organizational theory, contingency theory, systems theory, organizational structure theory, neoclassical organizational theory and many others. The book has given key instruments that answer the questions about the organizational theories. It has given strengths and weaknesses of theories and practical applications of the theories. In the book, there are peer-reviewed articles that are published on each theory.
Lumpe, M.-P. (2008). Leadership and organization in the aviation industry. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Although limited to aviation industry, the gives a detailed information about the organizational structures concepts and leadership. The book develops leadership and organizational concepts in aviation industry according to different professional backgrounds. The book offers organizational skills to business leaders or managers who are fresh in their jobs.
Recker, J., & Mendling, J. (February 01, 2016). The State of the Art of Business Process Management Research as Published in
…show more content…
It develops new organization theories that are based on academic disciplines like economics and sociology. This book gives the solution to the errors that are found in the organization data or information. It addresses the causes and effects that these problems or errors have on the institution and its stakeholders. Remarkably, the book gives methodological principles that are used to predict when errors are likely to occur. It does not only gives the time when errors are likely to occur, but also how great they are likely to be in the organization. The author offers propositions about human resource management and
Perrow, C. (1973), “The short and glorious history of organisational theory”, Organisational Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 1, pg.2-15
(2014) is “the way in which leaders interact, make decisions, and influence others in the organization” (p 237). The culture needs to foster cooperation from all areas of an organization, while providing the ability for adaptation and growth. Not all organizations culture will be the same, there is not a correct one that can blanket all organizations to cozy success. (3) Talent Systems. Human capital drives all organizations, the right people need to be in the right jobs with the correct opportunities for growth and advancement. There must be a constant search for strategic thinkers and leaders able to step up with called upon. The authors mention “Talent Sustainability” (p. 248), there must be enough qualified employees ready to move up so the organization will not stall while searching for others to replace others due to attrition, or other opportunists. (4) Organizational Design, must take a number of variables into account while providing structure to an organization. Hughes et al. (2014) state “the design of the organization is a trade-off between options, each with advantages and disadvantages” (p 253). The correct design can help clear the hierarchy of an organization and the proper channels for
Robbins, S.P., & Coulter, M. (2009). Management (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter. M. (2014). Management (12th ed.). Retrieved from: Colorado Technical University eBook Collection database.
PRIMIS MNO 6202: Managing Organizations. 2007. The 'Secondary' of the ' Reprint of the book. McGraw-Hill Education, 2013.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Compare and contrast the management theories of Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Elton Mayo, and Douglas McGregor. In what sense(s) are these theories similar and/or compatible? In what sense(s) are these theories dissimilar and/or incompatible? How would a contingency theorist reconcile the points of dissimilarity and/or incompatibility between these approaches? The twentieth century has brought in a number of management theories which have helped shape our view of management in the present business environment.
The article discusses how organizations must change to survive in a competitive market. Companies must change how they gather information, implement the information, and support the employees that acquire the information.
There are several theories that examine an organization and it’s approach to managing work in an effort to develop efficiency and increase production. Two classical approaches to management are Taylor’s scientific management theory and Weber's bureaucratic management theory. Both men are considered pioneers of in the study of management.
The classical school of organization theory dominated administrations from the early 1900’s well into the 1930’s, and it is still relevant today in many of the contemporary organization theories. Shafritz states that classical organization theory was the first theory of its kind, and serves as the foundation of other schools organization theory (Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2011, p. 32). Classical organization theory includes scientific management approach, bureaucratic approach, and administrative management approach. Several major theorists of classical organization were Adam Smith, Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, Henri Fayol, and Luther Gulick.
There are three well-established theories of classical management: Taylor?s Theory of Scientific Management, Fayol?s Administrative Theory, Weber?s Theory of Bureaucracy. Although these schools, or theories, developed historical sequence, later ideas have not replaced earlier ones. Instead, each new school has tended to complement or coexist with previous ones.
There are various organizational theories that attempt to evaluate the behavior of people in organizations, whether as a group or individually. The neo classical theory focuses on the needs of the workers and puts a premium on empowering employees in an effort to maximize their production (Colorado State University-Global Campus, 2010). Research by Sultana and Manivannan (2009) concludes that workers with institutional knowledge are a company’s most important company assets. A company needs to do what it can to retain these valuable assets, and neo classical thinking helped to spawn a new emphasis on job satisfaction and the social aspect of the workplace.
Understanding the structure of an organization plays a vital role in laying the blueprint for how a company will be managed and organized. It provides a well-defined framework that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each employee in a particular company. It shows how each employee interacts and works one another in achieving the goals of a company. In other words, organizational structure is a reflection of the working relationships that govern the workflow of the company. It has a profound effect on a company’s structural dimensions, which includes formalization, specialization, hierarchy and centralization.
Larson, M., Myers, M. (1997). BPR success or failure? A business process reengineering project in the financial services industry. ICIS '97 Proceedings of the eighteenth international conference on Information systems. Retrieved from ACM Digital Library database.
Hatch (2011) has classified organisational theory into four groups. The first group is “Classical Organisation Theory”, this group is based on the belief as capitalist groups use the organisation as a control and exploit the labor force to maximum profit, and the workers are treated as if they were just one production cost and also just a product that was bought and sold in the exchange market. Under such conditions, workers will experience self-alienation with their work. The second group is “Modern Organisation Theories”, this attempted to explain the whole phenomenon of science, and social sciences from atomic level, molecular, organ, and organ to individual, group, and social. This divide system level into