Approaches to Organizations and Organizing - Coursework Example

Approaches to Organizations and Organizing Your name University name To capture the complexity and diversity of organizations as well as their activities in a single formal definition seems difficult. It is therefore worthy to capture the spectrum on how organizations are perceived through multiple dimensions which may sometimes be contrary to one another. Although each dimension highlights specific features of organizations and thus providing incomplete and impartial views, together they provide an extensive way of capturing the full breadth of organizational life (Bacharach, 1989). According to Scott & Davis (2007), there are three prominent approaches to organizations and organizing: rational system, natural system and open system. Each approach calls to attention to specific significant and enduring features of organizations that differentiate them from interrelated collectivities, and embodies a variety of assumptions and beliefs on the nature of the organizations. Although there are a variety of approaches to organizing, each with its own conceptual frameworks, contemporary perspectives and guiding assumptions, most managers find rational approach more appealing. According to Scott (1998, p.29), organizations as rational systems are characterized by goal specificity and formalization. In this approach, he indeed views organizations as collectivities in which managers orient themselves in pursuing and exhibiting relatively specific goals as well as highly formalized social structures. Managers design organizations in such a way that it achieves specific goals, and they descriptively and normatively argue that organizational designs adopt formal structures such as rules, roles and relationships that are formulated to emphasize efficiency for the achievement of well defined objectives. The rational system perspective comprises of approaches such as Taylor’s scientific management, Weber’s bureaucratic theory, Fayol’s administrative theory and Simon’s theory of administrative behavior (Adler & Borys, 1996; Bacharach, 1989). It contributes to the functional and technical rationality of behavior in organizations and thus allowing managers to form stable expectations that concern to the organization as well as the other individuals who belong to it. Etzioni (1960) argues that this is made possible through the existence of a formal organizational structure with explicit rules that prescribe organizational roles and relationships regardless of the distinct characteristics of individuals performing those roles. The use of rational systems approach helps managers to examine the formal processes and structures that govern organizational behavior. Thus, organizational activities are ordered in such a way that some of the set predetermined rules or goals help in the attainment of maximum efficiency. Drawing on Strati (2000), Simon points out that the processes by which formalization and goal specificity add to rational behaviour in organizations is through individual decision making by organizational members. Managers also find rational approaches more appealing since they are able to emphasize on the work procedures that not only optimize but also increase productivity by focussing on Taylor’s scientific management theory. Organizations are rendered as machine-like bureaucracies in which all actions and behaviors are coordinated and controlled in ensuring goal achievement in the larger economy (Adler & Borys, 1996). In this regard, organizations are comprised of standard operating procedures and formal structures that specify individuals’ responsibilities and ensure that these procedures are consistently performed (Baum, 2002). Through this formalization, managers attempt to make organizational behavior predictable by regulating and standardizing it. According to DiMaggio (1995), organization formed on the basis of belief in a hierarchy of officials eminent to authority under normative rules aim to rationalize the activities of managers through a universal set of principles of administration. The focused attention on formal structures, official policies and rules, employer-employee relationships by this approach allows managers to study the changes in the organization in determining efficiency and profitability. These principles actually guide the grouping, specialization and coordination of organizational activities. In addition, managers find the approach more appealing since it focuses attention on a range of ethical issues that include routinized procedures, violations of explicit rules, organizational norms, as well as positive and negative outcomes that emanate from strict adherence to the rules (Boyle, 2001; Selznick, 1948). These are the key areas through which managers can look for problems in employee discipline and evaluation. Generally, the rational approaches can be regarded as deliberate and purposeful in achieving the organizational goals and objectives. By focusing on individual actions and decisions, managers are able to understand and deal with the social psychological levels of the organizational members as illustrated by Taylor and Simon. Similarly, by focusing on Fayol and Weber’s structural levels, managers are able to analyse and conceptualize the characteristics of organizational forms (Scott, 1998. P. 49). Managers who adopt these schools of thoughts tend to emphasize on the rationality of the organizational structure and not the rationality of the individuals in it. Hinnings & Greenwood (2002) notes not only rational approaches that can benefit managers, but also open systems or natural systems. Natural system approaches is defined as a collective whose participants share a common interest in survival and engage in informally structured activities to secure its end while an open system is defined as a collection of interdependent activities that link shifting coalitions of participants in an organization (Weick, 1995). He further adds that open systems are deep-rooted in the environments in which the organizations operate and depend on dependent on continuing exchanges constituted by these exchanges. In contrast to rational system view that is described by formal structure and efficiency, the natural system view is depicted by informal structure, adaptation and emergent purpose. Although it puts little emphasis on formal structure, it is argued that in natural systems approach managers use informal structures of roles and relationships which emerge among people and groups and thus shaping organizational activities and goals (Bacharach, 1989). In this regard, organizations are purposely designed as organic entities aimed to infuse meaning and value beyond the purpose intended in the formal structure. Besides, most organizational analysts have argued that the informal aspects of organization seem to undermine, replace or transform the formal ones (Boyle, 2001). Thus, the key strength to this approach is the focus on the politics of workplace since struggle over power, status, resources and even survival takes place within the informal realm. Although organizations can initially be designed to pursue specific goals, they often go beyond to include supplement purposes or meanings through the human interactions within the organizations and thus displacing the initial objectives. Using the natural systems approach can be beneficial to managers in the sense that it focuses on informal, non-rational and moral bases of social conduct and cooperation. Further, the informal structure characterizes the spontaneous logic of human emotions and needs. Hinnings & Greenwood (2002) argues that such informal relationships enhance communication; maintain cohesion; and gets things done. He says that interactions among face-to-face groups as well as reciprocal bonds and feelings form the building blocks in which organisations are run. Baum (2002) and Selznick (1948) illustrates that the natural system approach presents a finely balanced system of mutual social constraint through which the workers’ actions are shaped by the expectations and demands of their “role set.” In both natural and rational approaches, organizations and their environments are considered as separate entities with clearly defined boundaries. However, in open system approach, there is no obvious distinction between organizations and their environments (Strati, 2000; Weick, 1995). It rather focuses on the interdependencies and relationships between organizations and their environments. In adopting this approach, managers are able to obtain resources from the environment, processing them and in turn distributing the organizational output back into the environment. It is also beneficial for managers to adopt the open system since they will be able to meet and influence the dynamic demands of the environment and thus solving various interrelated and possibly conflicting systems (Weick, 1995). The best way to manage organizational activities in an environment characterized by rapid market or technological change and uncertainties is by using coordinating mechanisms that closely links organizational subunits (inputs, processes and knowledge) (DiMaggio, 1995; Boyle, 2001). Furthermore, managers are in the position to put emphasis on the role of cognition creating and sustaining organizations. Through this approach, managers are In conclusion, rational, natural and open systems are the approaches to organizational theory as described by Scott (1998). Rational system approach is more appealing than the other organizational perspectives since through it; managers become able to accomplish specific organizational goals by following formally established rules and establishing an explicit purpose of attaining the goals. On the other hand, managers can pursue multiple interests and recognize the organizational value by adopting natural systems. Their interests guide the employees’ behaviour in spite of the fact that the organization is considered important in fulfilling their interests and needs. Similarly, in open systems approach, managers are in the position to view organizations as having a connection with the environment hence regarding them to as coalitions of individuals with a variety of interests influencing the environment. References Adler, P. & Borys, B. (1996). Two Types of Bureaucracy: Enabling and Coercive.  Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61-89.  Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some Criteria for evaluation. Academy of management review, 14, 496-515. Baum, J. A. (2002). The Blackwell companion to organizations. Oxford, London: Wiley-Blackwell. Boyle, P. (2001). Organizational ethics in health care: Principles, cases, and practical solutions. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. DiMaggio, P. J. (1995). Comments on what theory is not. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391-397. Etzioni, A. (1960). Two approaches to organizational analysis: A critique and a suggestion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5, 257-278. Hinnings, C. R. & Greenwood, R. (2002). Disconnects and consequences in organizational theory. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 47, 411-421. Scott, W. R & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Scott, W. R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Englewood. Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the Theory of Organization. American Sociological Review, 13, 25-35. Strati, A. (2000). Theory and method in organization studies: Paradigms and choices. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Weick, K. E. (1995).  What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385-390. Read More