Development of Organisation Theory in the 20th Century - Example

Running Head: DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANISATION THEORY IN THE 20TH CENTURY Development of Organisation Theory in the 20th Century [Author’s Name] [Institution’s Name] Development of Organisation Theory in the 20th Century Introduction The twentieth century was a period of diversity in management thought. Modern concepts of organisation theory are not completely distinct and unrelated; they evolved from earlier views. These developments have increased our understanding of organisation theory and management practice. In order to truly understand organisation theory as it exists today, one must appreciate the historical context in which theories have been developed and tested. Theorists like Frederick Taylor, Abraham Maslow, Michael Argyle, Gareth Morgan contributions and legacy on management cannot be denied. Classical theorist: Frederick Taylor Under Taylor's philosophy of scientific management, the role of management changed significantly from that of the past (Ellemers & van den Heuwel, 34-50). His emphasis was on making management a science rather than an individualistic approach based upon rule of thumb. He set forth to correct the soldiering situation and create a 'mental revolution' between workers and managers based on 4 principles: 1. Scientifically study each part of a task and develop the best method for performing it, which replaces the old rule of thumb method. 2. Carefully select and then train, teach and develop the worker (previously, workers chose their own work and trained themselves as best they could. 3. Cooperate fully with workers to ensure that all work is done in accordance with the principles of science that has been developed. 4. Divide work and responsibility between management and workers; Managers think and plan, workers basically execute orders. (Previously, almost all the work and the greater part of responsibility were thrown upon the workers). By maximising the productive efficiency of workers and employers, scientific management would also create prosperity for the workforce by maximising the earnings of workers and employers. Taylor's ideal factory was a metaphor for a better society and this established him as Father of scientific management. (Ellemers & van den Heuwel, 34-50) Taylor also emphasised ideas and activities that inspired others to study and develop his methods of scientific management. His most prominent advocates were Frank and Lillian Gilbreths who assisted his development of the time and motion studies. The Gilbreths were best known for their study of work arrangements to eliminate wasteful hand-and-body motions and their design of proper tools and equipment for optimising work performance (Bartol et al., p37). Moreover, Henry L. Gantt was a close associate of Taylor in extending Taylor's incentive wage system. For instance, Gantt devised an incentive system that gave workers a bonus for completing their jobs in less time than the allowed standard and awarded supervisor's bonuses when workers reached this standard. (Charlton, 1983, 129-148) Scientific management became a "movement" with wide potential applications and many followers. No single figure in the history of industrialization did more to affect the role of the manager than Taylor, and in fact those who came after him had to take Taylor's work into account in the application of their theories and techniques. For instance, he provided many of the ideas for the conceptual framework later adopted by the administrative management theorists, including Fayol's 14 principles of management: clear delineation of authority and responsibility, separation of planning from operations, the development of incentive systems for worker, task specialisation/standardisation etc (Jackson, 2000, 66-80). Many of the principles of scientific management were similar to those ideologies in Max Weber's bureaucratic model (Robbins et al., p48). This was particularly true of Taylor's view that management itself should be governed by rational rules and procedures. (Ellemers & van den Heuwel, 34-50) Neo-classical theorist: Abraham Maslow Against this background of a search for single explanations of worker motivation, the work of Abraham Maslow (1943) was particular important. Relatively highlighting a single cause of inspiration, he suggested a "Hierarchy of Need" in which individuals sought outcomes, which satisfied needs in an ascending hierarchy. Mallow's ideas (1943) were important in opening up the motivation debate to include more than one goal, and to identify "self-esteem" and "self-actualisation" as potentially important goals. Nonetheless, there has been little experiential sustainability for his view of a widespread chain of command, as the evidence once again points to the fact that people's motivation profiles vary with individual characteristics and with social context. (Fulop, 1999, 117-132) Maslow thought that inside every individual, there exists a chain of command of five desires and that each stage of need must be pleased before an individual pursues the next higher level of need. As the person improves throughout the levels of needs, the earlier needs lose their motivational value. The five stages of desires, according to Maslow are (Boje, 1996, 54-60): 1. Physiological Needs. These desires incorporate food, water, and sex, which are essential for us to survive. If these desires are accordingly not met, then all other needs will not be a source of motivation. 2. Safety Needs. This consigns to the desire to feel safe from physical and emotional harm. 3. Social Needs. These desires are apprehensive with public interactions with others. The human being desires to feel a intelligence of belonging, affection, acceptance, and friendship. 4. Esteem Needs. Esteem is an attribute concerned with the beliefs of self-confidence imitative from achieving something, and the recognition and prestige that comes with that achievement. 5. Self-Actualization Needs. This stage of desires is concerned with attaining one's full potential and dreams. Maslow's chain of command of desires theory is too simple and rigid. The kernel of Maslow's (1943) facts was largely obtainable to the industry world by McGregor (1960), who was also important for the stress he gave to the idea that, regardless the actual motivation profile of workers, their manager's assumptions about their motivation had a profound effect upon the behaviour and attitudes of both managers and workers. McGregor (1960) recommended two polar examples of executive thought: "Theory X and Y". Theory X managers, somewhat in the manner of F. W. Taylor, supposed workforce were idle, resistant to change and lacking in ambition. (Doosje, 1995, 410-436) Managers consequently essentially need to control them tightly, to limit their discretion and to manipulate them with incentive schemes. Theory Y managers, on the other hand, followed Maslow (1943). Hence it was the manager's job to lead them to these rich pastures and help them to develop, to the mutual benefit of themselves and their employers. The most valuable part of leadership, in this context, inspiration is as important as perspiration. But to maintain transformation, one has to poise the vision with a practical analysis of present strengths and weaknesses and a determination to make things happen. One can be a leader with not being a manager. (Charlton, 1983, 129-148) Modern theorist: Michael Argyle Michael Argyle, an expert studying nonverbal communication, found the emotional state is found in the meaning of a nonverbal signal. With respect to a receiver of a message, the nonverbal signal is found in the interpretation of the message. Most scholars studying communication will limit the definition of nonverbal communication. Handwriting and sign language, even though not technically spoken, are considered verbal because they form words. Ironically, sounds being sang (wordless songs or notes) are considered nonverbal forms of communication. Sight, sound, smell, touch, or tastes all have opportunities to be considered nonverbal communicators. (Doosje, 1995, 410-436) Some forms of nonverbal communication, relating to someone expressing openness or confidence, are open hands (palms up), unbuttoning or removing a jacket (men), making eye contact, smiling and leaning forward in a relaxed manner, standing up straight with the feet slightly apart. Signs of cooperation or readiness are standing up with hands on hips, starting a conversation with a welcoming handshake, or smiling and making eye contact. All these signs of nonverbal communication say something about a person’s demeanor or attitude without requiring verbiage. Argyle discusses and builds upon a wide variety of research dealing with the work behaviors of individuals, groups, and organizations. Some of the topics that are examined are technology and jobs, personality and career/job selection, motivation, groups, social skills, training, organizational life and theories, work place democracy, job satisfaction, work-related stress, unemployment, retirement, and the future of work. (Boje, 1996, 54-60) For instance, a very thoughtful discussion on the social psychological outcomes of unemployment (e.g., income loss, apathy, lower self-esteem, a higher suicide rate) helps the reader to better understand the benefits of meaningful employment. This indication is more simplified when Argyle contrasts the experiences of the unemployed and the retired. The differences between these groups are quite dramatic (e.g., happiness, health), with the evidence suggesting that: "Retirement is seen as a proper reward for a hard life's work, while unemployment has the implication of failure." (Charlton, 1983, 129-148) Another thing which seems significant is the employee involvement. For instance the alternative of a focus to transmit occurs during a cross-functional meeting with the journalist, the legal, and the technical. We can evaluate it to self-important procedure of going up the management tree involving several levels of hierarchy between those who need to talk to each other. (Fulop, 1999, 117-132) Argyle mentions that all factors determining individual behaviour share a high importance. Without one aspect of the individual behaviour determining factors, a person’s individual behaviour would not be easily identified and lack information. More so, any one determining factor would cause the individual behaviour of any one person to change dramatically as well, exemplifying the importance each determining factor holds. Individual behaviour is a complex aspect of a person and as long as it takes to create an individual behaviour in someone, behaviour can not be changed easily or adjusted if problematic. Each organization must recognize the diverse individual behaviours existing in his or her establishment and remain ethical and sensitive in their approaches to not only better each individual but also the company itself. (Doosje, 1995, 410-436) Post-Modern theorist: Gareth Morgan Gareth Morgan compares all organisations simply with 4 metaphoric terms: Machines Organisms Brains Cultures In the views, what Morgan is trying to say, is in conjunction to the brain, if an organisation is 'shattered'(fallen down or failed), the organisation still 'reconstruct', in order to pick itself back again. In relation to the brain in this quote, the brain is the main function in any body in the world. It controls our movements with our limbs as well as our organs that we are unable to control, if an arm was removed from a human body, the person with the removed arm will find difficulties to live with only one arm at first, but as time goes on, that person will have learnt different techniques in order to only function with one arm, and carry on with his/her own life. (Jackson, 2000, 66-80) We are able to see that any bureaucratic organisation will require the top level management which is able to make all the decisions within that organisation, very much similar to our own brain, an organisation will require core workers in similarity as our brain needing a core organ such as a heart to keep the whole body functioning. There are also other sectors within an organisation which can afford to be more flexible then others, in comparison to the brain, we can compare these flexibilities such as the food intake we eat, most of the time, we will require supplements from the 5 food groups to stay healthy, but on special occasions we are able to spoil ourselves with fatty foods and sweets to keep us motivated and satisfied. (Jackson, 2000, 66-80) It is hard to state that every culture that exists in our world is the same or even similar when in fact they are not. Morgan uses the example of the Japanese, where the rice field workers depend on the samurai's for protection, and the samurai's depend on the rice field workers for food. So in relation to this example, we can observe that management is dependent on their workers in order to produce the good and services as well as the workers depending on the managers to care and appraise them. (Charlton, 1983, 129-148) It is quite interesting that even in the 'Classical-Scientific' view of an organisation is able to bring motivation towards each individual, and how it inter-relates with a bureaucratic organisation (Boje, 1996, 54-60). Throughout my studies with the Brain and Culture, I also achieved the view that Culture and Brain in someway work a like in the sense of being dependent from one thing to another, without employees, management would have no one to produce the goods and services, but without the managers, workers would have no one to care for them. Conclusion Theories of organizations and management have undergone substantial change as a result of research in behavioural science. Prior to the human relations movement, the classical or traditional theory of organization prevailed among management scholars and practitioners. It was upon this theory that military, government, business, and church organizations in earlier periods of history were based. With the advent of human relations movement, however, the traditional theory was modified to accommodate the growing concern for the role of people in organizations. Such modifications gave rise to the neoclassical theory of organization. The influence of behavioural science and of the systems concept of management in turn provided the foundation for what is termed modern organization theory. (Fulop, 1999, 117-132) In the first instance this is because such developments can only accentuate the material, physical, and welfare imbalances between those in and out of work. More dramatically though, they present us with the vision of a neo-Orwellian future in which employees are seduced, tamed, and ultimately zombified by an emerging organisational monoculture (Boje, 1996, 54-60). Not only does this limit people's real choices, but by quashing debate and dissent it also undermines any organisation's ability to correct those errors that it will inevitably make. In the long term, it is a recipe for failure. (Doosje, 1995, 410-436) For this reason, we should perhaps consider alternatives to the all-embracing identities that are often championed by organisational theorists (after Mayo, 1949; see e.g. Daft, 1995, p. 472). In particular, because the key to higher-level sustainability--which can correct for the limitations of any single perspective--would appear to lie in authentic collective diversity, one option is to embrace the philosophy and practice of "organic pluralism" (see Haslam, in press, for more detail) (Boje, 1996, 54-60). This encourages employees to pursue needs and interests associated with groups that have compatible superordinate goals (e.g. the success of the organisation) but different social and organisational perspectives. It also suggests that dividends can flow from the conflict between such groups as much as they flow from the cooperation within them (Jackson, 2000, 66-80). Clearly--as with all organisational theory--there is a political, not just a psychological, dimension to recommendations of this form (Jackson, 2000, 66-80). This will make them problematic for many organisational strategists--especially those who believe that their interests are well served by the goals and values of dominant groups. In the end though, because it draws us back from a dangerously singular set of organisational and social motivations, it may be in all our interests. (Charlton, 1983, 129-148) Reference Boje, D.M., Gephart Jr, R.P., Thatchenkery, T.J. (1996). Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Charlton, J. H (1983). "Employee participation in the public sector: a review", Journal of General Management, 8:3, pp129-148 Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification, journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436. Eggins, R.A., & Haslam, S.A. (1999). Social identity and negotiation: The benefits of giving voice to conflicting group interests. Unpublished manuscript, The Australian National University, Canberra. Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuwel, H. (in press). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behaviour at work. Journal of Applied Psychology. Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389. Fulop, L. and Linstead, S (1999). Management: A critical text, Basingstoke: Macmillan Jackson, N. and Carter, C. (2000). Rethinking Organisation Behaviour, Harlow: Pearson Education. Lembke, S., & Wilson, M.G. (1998). Putting the "team" into teamwork: Alternative theoretical contributions for contemporary management practice. Human Relations, 51, 927-943. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation, Psychological Review, vol. 50 pp.370-396. McClelland, D.C. (1987). Human motivation. New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More