Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Theories in organization and management
Foundation of organizational theory
Organization theory & behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Theories in organization and management
Organization theory is the body of knowledge related to the examination and analysis of both the internal workings of organizations and their interactions with their external environments. This knowledge is generated either through practical experience or through scientific inquiry. Organization theory is also concerned with applying this knowledge to designing and managing organizations. Contrary to what the term “organization theory” might suggest, the literature of this field of study teems with a variety of organization theories. Each theory offers a perspective for understanding organizations. The wealth of perspectives in organization theory stems from the diverse, complex, and dynamic nature of organizations and the wide range of academic disciplines underlying the field of organization theory. For any field of study as diverse as organization theory, controversies are bound to occur. Such a clash of perspectives occurred when Herbert Simon published “The Proverbs of Public Administration”---a biting criticism of classical organization theory as exemplified by the work of Luther Gulick. I shall first summarize Gulick’s and Simon’s central ideas about organizations, laying the ground to compare and contrast their approaches. Then I will consider Simon’s critique of Gulick, and to be fair to Gulick, we shall also examine arguments from an article written in Gulick’s defense by Thomas Hammond. In the course of the discussion of the Gulick-Simon debate, I will take the liberty to interpose my comments on the arguments put forth. My global comments on this debate are collected toward the end of this think piece. Let us first consider Gulick’s perspective on organizations. Gulick’s work on organization theory belongs t... ... middle of paper ... ...e possibility for cross-fertilization between the existing paradigms exists. Perhaps, the best that can be done is to establish frameworks in which multiple paradigms provide different viewpoints from which to examine the complexities of organizations. Works Cited Gulick, Luther H. 1937. “Notes on the Theory of Organization” in Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick (eds.), Papers on the Science of Administration, 1–45. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University. Simon, Herbert A. 1946. “The proverbs of Administration,” Public Administration Review 6, 53–67. Simon, Herbert A. 1947. Administrative Behavior. Fourth edition 1997. New York: The Free Press. Hammond, Thomas H. 1990. “In Defence of Luther Gulick’s ‘Notes on the Theory of Organization.’” Public Administration 68, 143–173.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing Organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
In any organization, effective management is difficult to achieve and maintain. Analyzing organizations from multiple perspectives allows people to better understand the system and potential issues involved and to identify solutions. Bolman and Deal utilize a four-frame approach focusing on the structural frame, human resource frame, political frame, and symbolic frame.1
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership, 4th Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Law and social order constitute important elements of social change and theories of criminology (Schmalleger, 2012). Understanding the interplay between them, law and social order, gives us important insights into how and why governments either work or fail. Three different perspectives outline the interplay between the two and help us understand what is happening behind the scenes in various forms of government. These three perspectives are the consensus, pluralist, and the conflict perspectives.
In order for one to evaluate and identify with the diverse business structures, he/she must be aware of the meaning and standards that makes that structure. Various businesses functions in different ways as the world is full of technology and new structures, company cultures and new ways in which companies are run. In order to fully grasp the concepts of Organizational structure and culture in the movies, I will use the Movie Up in the Air and The Devil Wear Prada movies to analyze a business scenario from them.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Over 50 years ago, English-speaking managers were directly introduced to Henry Fayol’s theory in management. His treatise, General and Industrial Management (1949), has had a great effect on managers and the practice of management around the world. However, 24 years after the English translation of Fayol, Henri Mintzberg in the Nature of Managerial Work (1973) developed another theory and stated that Fayol’s work was just “folklores”.
Organizations must operate within structures that allow them to perform at their best within their given environments. According to theorists T. Burns and G.M Stalker (1961), organizations require structures that will allow them to adapt and react to changes in the environment (Mechanistic vs Organic Structures, 2009). Toyota Company’s corporate structure is spelt out as one where the management team and employees conduct operations and make decisions through a system of checks and balances.
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.
As the theme of my essay I have chosen to find out what our contemporary society must not forget in order to be able to make organizational theory evolve well into the 21st century. For this task I have decided to take a look back to Aldous Huxley’s modern dystopia “Brave new world”, that warned against totalitarian regimes that intended to suppress individuality in order to advance the interest of the state in its time. Even as those regimes might not be a direct threat nowadays we can eerily conclude that some aspects of it are quite accurate for the times we live in. According to Phillip Yancey who suggested that “there is a much more subtle enemy inchoate within each of us - a natural tendency for people to trade autonomy for comfort, safety and amusement.” This for the most people does not set off alarms but I will argue that it is the most basic requirement that has to be met in our day and age in order to tackle the wide range of issues that we face at the crossroads leading to the future, whether we talk about humanity or organizational theory itself. I think the novel gives us the perfect opportunity to draw parallels with our contemporary society, and see what must be corrected within post modernity based on how things evolved over the course of history and from prophetical books like Huxley’s even as at his time it was only intended to be satire. In the World State people are controlled by technologies like genetic engineering, sleep-learning and drugs like soma to satisfy needs and gently induce masses to enjoy their servitude. If one were to describe postmodernism in just a word or two, "skepticism" and "relativism" would probably best capture the overall ethos of its adherents. Deep skepticism about...
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.
Public administration disciples have sought to find the best way to rid organizations of inefficiency and waste. This led to changes to the very foundations of management and motivation theories. To increase efficiency, Max Weber and Frederick Taylor made changes to the process and the rules; while Henri Fayol fixated on the human element. While Weber, Taylor, and Fayol all sought to enhance workplace operations, they differ in their assessments of what and/or who could be the catalyst for this change.
Early Theories of Organizations emerged mainly for military and Catholic Church. The metaphor of the machine was dominant, where organizations are viewed as machines. Therefore, the organizational application was, since workers behave predictably (as machines do rarely deviate from the norm), management knows what to expect, and workers operating outside expectations are replaced.
Greenwood, R., & Miller, D. (2010). Tackling Design Anew: Getting Back to the Heart of Organization Theory. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24 (4), 78-88.