Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An assignment on organizational development
Reflecting on Organizational Development change
Principles of organization development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An assignment on organizational development
Organizational development (OD) is an application or process of building a greater level of efficiency within the organization. OD develops the ongoing effort geared for long-term effects. OD works to help management and employees on a variety of levels. Organizational development is perhaps unequaled in its ability to meet any type of organization needs. However, the solutions developed from the role of OD may not be necessarily interchangeable with different organizations (Grant, 2010).
According to traditional theorists such as Fayol, Weber, and Taylor, a school of thought identifies a level of agreement in their view of organizational system implementation. These classical theorists indicate in their readings that there is perhaps a single most ideology in implementing an organizational structure (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn, 2002). However, in today’s paradigms, there are specialists whom develop techniques to deliver the perfect organizational systems. Many theorist beliefs are contrary to those of classical theorists.
In today’s organizational development, the implementation is as different as the personalities of those who regulated the various organizations Schermerhorn et al. (2002). Nevertheless, the new idea about OD implementation is perhaps fuel by the development of the contingency theory. The contingency theory is in direct contrast to the writings of the classical scholars, e.g. Taylor, Weber, and Fayol. However, in light of the contingency theory, other components give more understanding as to develop an organization that is more effective.
According to Olum (2004) Organizational, development has occurred since the time people organized to perform unified tasks. Without a management system, work...
... middle of paper ...
...er). Bureaucratic Organizations. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from http://www.citeman.com/11989-bureaucratic-organizations.html
Ryan, K. (2010, 02/25/2010). Army Manpower and the War on Terror. Retrieved from http://people.hmdc.harvard.edu/~dcarpent/burpols/ryanmanpowerreport2005.pdf
Schermerhorn, Jr., J. R., Hunt, J. G., & Osborn, R. N. (2002). Organizational Behavior (7th ed.). USA: Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, F. W. (1910). The Principles of Scientific Management. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://catalog.loc.gov/
Taylor, F. W. (2011). Business Management Mate. Org. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from http://www.businessmate.org/Article.php?ArtikelId=223
Wren, D. A., Boyd, D. R., Bass, H. W., Bedeian, A. G., & Breeze, J. D. (2002). The foundations of Henri Fayol’s administrative. Management Decision, 40 (9), 906-918.
Boje, D. M. , Luhman, J. T. , and Cunliffe, A. L. “ A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization
Robbins , Stephen P. and Judge, Timothy, A. Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Prentice Hall. Pearson Custom Publishing. 2008 Print
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational Behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States of America: Pearson Prentise 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 coaching as image of managing is supported by Organizational Development (OD) theory. According to Beckhard (1969), the OD approach is planned, top-management committed, aimed to improve the effectiveness, long-term, action-oriented, focused on groups and teams. Each of these characteristics could be seen in interventions during the implementation of the change in British Airways.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A., (2004). Organizational Behavior (6th ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill/Irwin. pp. 406- 441.
Gibson, James L., John M. Ivancevich, and James H. Donnelly, Jr. Organization: Behaviour, Structure, Processes. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
For a company to be successful it is important that it has very good organization. Organization can be defined in many different ways. Bateman and Snell define organizing as assembling and coordinating the human, financial, physical, informational,
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.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Taylor, Frederick Winslow (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY, US and London, UK: Harper & Brothers. Print. 8 Feb. 2014.
Miles, R. (1975) Theories of Management: Implications for Organisational Behaviour and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Cummings, T. G. (2008). Organizational Development Diagnosis. Handbook of organization development (pp. 137-147). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
First of all, they criticise that Fayol’s theory is too formal to the extent of it can hardly be applied to informal organisations. His theory is too rigid and it will only shows its effectiveness in formal organisation structure.