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.
* Grace Ferguson, 2010. www.suite101.com “Factors determining organizational structure; Identifying the key components of an organization design”.
L.G. Bolman and T.F. Deal’s (2013) bestseller provided a four-frame model of an organization, which incorporates the structural, human resources, political and the symbolic forms.
Webber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Simon and Schuster. Translation and recopyright in 1975 by Talcott Parsons.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. D., & Deal, T. E. (2013). Reframing Organizations: Artistry,Choice, & Leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco, California, United States of America: Jossey-Bass.
Whyte, Glen. “Groupthink Reconsidered.” The Academy of Management Review 14.1 (Jan. 1989): 40-56. JSTOR. Web. 25 Jan. 2012.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. 6th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
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...
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2011). Classics of organization theory. Boston, MA:
Frederick Taylor and Henri Fayol are both considered classical contributors to management theory. Both were developing and expression their viewpoints at similar time period with the aim of “raising standard of management in industry” (Brodie,1967, p7) in a period were very few publications and theories on management. While both theories were developed with the same influencing factors such as war, social struggles and industrial revolution (Urwick. 1951, p7) each developed quite different management theories. Frederick Taylor is considered the Father of Scientific management and he developed scientific principles of management, focusing on the individual,...
Sociologist Max Weber undertook the first study of bureaucracy in the early 1900s (Tomkins, 2005). Weber’s theory of bureaucracy holds that administrative rationality is achieved by dividing work into specialized administrative functions, assigning each function to a specific office, placing clear limits on each office’s scope of authority, organizing officials on a career basis, and requiring them to carry out directives with strict discipline and in accordance with clearly defined rules (Tomkins, 2005). According to Weber, today’s government is predicated on the theory of legal-rational authority and its corresponding administrative apparatus – bureaucratic (Tomkins, 2005). Bureaucratic Administration is defined by a set of strictly defined rules that delineate the hierarchy of authority, the rights and duties of every official, and the means by which administrative duties are carried out (Tomkins, 2005). The ideal type bureaucracy, Weber envisioned, would include the following elements: fixed official duties, hierarchy of authority, system of rules, technical expertise, career service, written documentation and a spirit of informal impersonality (Tomkins, 2005). Henri Fayol was the first of the theorists to identify management as a continuing process of evolution and Gulick expanded on Fayol’s...
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.