The Rational Organizational Concepts Adopted by Different Management Departments - Essay Example

Rational Approach to Organization Management is an important functioning for all companies in the world today. There has been realized that the functioning of the various organizations can only be realized through efficient and economic management of all the various variables of the production process. In the following paper there shall be conducted a detailed discussion on the rational organizational theories that have been adopted by various management departments to ensure that the production process is more smooth and proficient in nature. Management is defined as the process of administering and coordinating resources effectively and efficiently in an effort to achieve the goals of the organization.   Managers plan, lead, organize and control. Managing in the 21st century can pose many challenges.   Some of these challenges are telecommuting, globalization and diversity, and a changing legal climate.There have been a number of theories that have been developed by various scholars over the years to ensure that the management of organization can be focused upon and the most effective managerial system could be adopted to suit the needs of the organization. In the following paper there shall be conducted a detailed discussion on the rational approach of management that had been first formulated by Max Webbers. He was one of the many scholars who propagated the utilisation of the rational approach while organizing and managing organizations. The paper aims to look at the importance and significance of the rational approach, while also look at how the coming of the open system of organization has challenged the rational approach in the current times. The rational approach of management is on which was propagated by the traditionalist theorists who believed that it is only through the adoption of the rational approach of management of organization that one can achieve efficiency in the functioning. The rational approach that was developed as a part of the whole classical argument where the emphasis was on the efficiency and economy, where there could be maximization of the performance and profitability of the organization. As has been specified in the section in the paper above, the classical theorists have developed the rational theory of management. The emphasis in the rational theories is always on the scientific factor, and on facts (Clark G G, 2005). The theory of rational organization of management calls for the conduction and structuring of the institutions on the basis of empirical facts. They believed that the objectives of the organization were the end goals of all activities, and therefore all activities should be planned in such a manner so as to ensure that the aims of the organization are realised. The most important factor that is to be considered in this form of management is on the utilisation of the process, and there was no space given to ambiguity. This form of rational thought left no space for interpretation, but called for a strict execution of the protocol of the organization so that the goals of the organization can be achieved. This is perhaps one of the main reasons why the managers today try to incorporate the rational theory of management into the functionality of an organization. The rational theory allows them to control all the various factors to ensure that the goals of the organization are being achieved, and it gives no scope for non-empirical factors to exist. In fact most of the managers would today like to ensure that they can solve any dilemma that may come up through the rational approach. For example, in case there is a vacancy the management would usually fill it in through following the rational course of thought where the employee who is the most productive at the lower level will be promoted. The rational theory of organization believed that the organization is a man-made construct, and is a result of deliberative and rational human thought. Thus there had to be ensured that the rules and regulations that are developed are followed so that the organizations can function smoothly. The emphasis on the following of the set norms is very imperative to the rational school of thought. The rational theory of organization has been one of the oldest theories that have existed in the human society, and there has been observed that for a long time after the concept of management was formulated the management teams followed it in the daily execution of their tasks (Prechel H, Morris T, 2010). But with the coming of the late 20th century there was seen that although the rational approach was being implemented there was no growth being experienced and in fact over emphasis on the rules was leading to a drop in the production capacity of organizations (Dixon S E A, Meyer K E, Day M, 2010). There were theories that were developed in this period to substitute for the rational theory approach of organizations, to ensure that the productivity can be increased again, and development of the organizations could be achieved. There were a number of theories that were developed, but one of the most important ones was the open theory of the natural theory of organization. The natural theory of organization believed that the organization was a natural evolution of the man’s social activities, and thus was a natural product of the human nature and was a part of society (Piderit, S 2000). Thus the management of the organizational functionality and action had to be in sync with the social order, and there has to be ensured that the culture and social factors are taken into consideration when one manages the various factors. This school of thought rejects that one has to be scientific and empirical in their structuring, and that the execution of the rules and norms is foremost. This theory propagated that the main goal of any organization is not profit maximization but top ensure that the organization exists. Thus this is the end role, and there has to be ensured that the various factors that are involved are utilised in accordance to their capabilities. This school of thought rejects the notion of just scientific management and believes that there has to be laid focus on the human factor as well, and through this the concept of human resource development became more important. There was laid emphasis on the strategic management of the various resources so that the over-all functionality of the organization could be developed and improved (Zahra S A, Hitt M, et al, 2000). The implementation of this theory saw an improvement in the productivity of the employees of an organization, which is why this is a better form of management. This led to an increase in the productivity of the employees which led to an increase in the productivity of the organization as a whole. This is also more socially responsible. A decade ago the term strategic discourse was strongly supported by all individual companies and organization. It was believed that with the correct management of resources and through a precise study of the market forces the production process could not go wrong. But with time, due to the emergence of multifaceted complexities in the market system (Centre A H, Jackson P, 1995) there has been seen that it is no longer enough for most companies to just manage their resources in a most utilitarian manner. As has been specified by Mintzberg in his book ‘The Rise and fall of Strategic Management’, two decades ago most companies and organizations firmly believed that ‘planning could not go wrong’ (Mintzberg H 1994). This has not completely disappeared but there have emerged other concerns that it has to accommodate such as competition, forecasting and others (Kai H. L., Choon, L. S.,Matthew, K. O. L., &Izak, B. 2006). But as has been clearly specified by Pinsdorf, Marion, “The top management of any profit seeking organization is delinquent or grossly negligent if they do not engage in formal, integrated, long range planning.” (Pinsdorf, Marion, 1986) This approach is an important approach that has been developed in the recent years, and is the result of a modern day practices of free market economy. As is suggested by the name of the school of thought that has developed this form of human resource management strategy, the workers are treated as individual compartmentalized units and each unit functions separately (O’Neill, A &Jabri, M 2007), while the managers coordinate their activities to ensure that the organization functions as a well-oiled machinery (Barry D 1997). This method is important in today’s day and age as there has to be realized that all individuals are a part of the organization but yet are separate (Kang, H., Hahn, M., Fortin, D. R., Hyun, Y. J., &Eom, Y. 2006). This method allows them to function in their own capacity while they are a par of the organization. This is especially true in the case of the contingent workers who are not permanent members of the work force of an organization but are in fact employed for a certain period of time on the basis of a contract (Festing M 1997). Thus, there has to be ensured that they are dealt as separate units which have to regulated and coordinated by the managers to achieve efficiency and economy without any burden on the organizational resources. Reference: Barry D 1997, Strategy Retold, Towards a narrative view of strategic discourse, Academy of Management Review, Vol 22, No 2, pp 429-52. Centre A H, Jackson P, 1995, Public Relations Practices, 5th edition, Prentice Hall, pp 14-15. Clark G G, 2005, Unbundling the structure of Inertia, Resources versus Routine Rigidity, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 48, (5), 2005, pp 741-763 Dixon S E A, Meyer K E, Day M, 2010, Stages of Organizational transformation in Transition Economies: A dynamic capabilities approach, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 47 (3), 2010, pp 416- 430 Festing M 1997: International HRM strategies in multinational corporations, Management international Review, January 1997. Kai H. L., Choon, L. S., Matthew, K. O. L., &Izak, B. 2006, Do I trust you online, and if so, will I buy? An empirical study of two trust-building strategies. Journal of Management Information Systems (23) pp. 233-26 Kang, H., Hahn, M., Fortin, D. R., Hyun, Y. J., &Eom, Y. 2006, Effects of perceived behavioral control on the consumer usage intention of e-coupons, Psychology & Marketing (23) pp.841-864. Mintzberg H 1994, Strategic Planning, The rise and fall of strategic planning, 1994, Free Press Edition 1998, pp 458 Moore G, Beadle R, 2006, In Search of Organizational Virtue in Business: Agents, Goods, Practices, Institutions and Environment, Organizational Studies, Vol 27 (3), 2006, pp 369-378 O’Neill, A &Jabri, M 2007, ‘Legitimation and group conversational practices: implications for managing change,’ Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 571-600 Piderit, S 2000, ‘Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change,’ Academy of Management Review, vol. 25, no. 4, pp.783-794 Pinsdorf, Marion, 1986, Communicating When Your Company Is Under Siege: Surviving Public Crisis, Free Press ed, 1986 pp 235-250.  Prechel H, Morris T, 2010, The effects of organizational and political embeddedness on Financial Malfeasance: Dependence, Incentives and Opportunities, American Sociological Review, Vol 75 (4), 2010, pp 331-350.   Zahra S A, Hitt M, et al, 2000, International Expansion by New Venture Firms: International Diversity, Model of Market Entry, Technological Learning, and Performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 43 (5), 2000, pp 925-940.      Read More