To organize means to determine what activities are necessary for a specific purpose and to encourage them in groups, which are assigned to individuals. An organisation is a complex social system, which brings together many individuals for a given purpose. It is also an arrangement of personnel to facilitate the accomplishment of a given purpose through the allocation of functions and responsibilities. To further understand the definition of organisation let us consider the definition developed by Max Weber. Like any other field of study, and like organisation themselves, organizational analysis has a tradition. That tradition leans heavily on Max Weber, who is known for his analysis of bureaucracy and authority, topics that will be considered later. Weber also concerned himself with the more general definitions of organisation. In his definition he first distinguishes the "corporate group" from other forms of social organisation (Weber, 1947). The corporate group involves "a social relationship with either closed or limits the admission of outsiders by rules... so far as its order is enforced by the action of specific individuals whose regular function this is, of a chief or `head' and usually also a administrative staff."
This aspect of the definition contains a number of elements that need further discussion, since they are basic to most other such definition. In the first place, organisation involves social relationship. That is, individuals interact within the organization. However as the reference to closed or limited boundaries suggests, these individual are not simply in random contact. The organisation (corporate group) includes some parts of the population and exc...
... middle of paper ...
...inciples, developing models of organisation that were overly rational and mechanistic. The Type 2 theorist, to a large degree, represented a counterpoint to the rational-mechanistic view. The current stage of organisation theory more fully reflects the contribution of the type 3. Contingency advocates have taken the insights provided by the earlier theorists and reframed them in a situational context. Nevertheless, we should not conclude that the findings of the earlier management thinkers would be useless in the future. For, example many of the concepts developed by early classical writers are still of value today; the study of the management task in terms of functions performed and the use of management principle as guides to actions are still very much with us and are expected to remain valuable. Few who manage will be able to escape at least some of their impact.
organization: it goes beyond that. It is a concept, a people's movement, an idea. The concept of
The Organisation structure of a company addresses the fact that every organisation has specific units that are responsible for different roles and actions in the organisation and that no department within the organisation stands alone, they are intertwined. The organisational chart or structure should be designed to divide up the work load, responsibilities and roles to be done
Boje, D. M. , Luhman, J. T. , and Cunliffe, A. L. “ A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization
Organization is the function of assembling and coordinating human, financial, physical, informational and other resources needed to achieve goals. Without this function, my business would have folded in the first week. I have midlevel managers to gather together my employees, and discuss the plans for the week. Specific shoe styles must be displayed and organized in a certain order. Information must be disseminated to our marketing team so they know who we are targeting and what steps to take to increase our visibility and productivity. Organizing is not something just one person can do alone. For this function to work, it will take the entire team to pull together for us to triumphant.
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.
Wren. (2005). The History of Management Thought (5th ed.). Danvers, MA: Wiley & Sons. (Original work published 1976)
Today’s era of business world adapts to everything new but these modern concepts are an indirect tribute to the theories produced by Taylor, Fayol, Mayo and Weber. Taylor’s Scientific management theory is one such example which has become such an important aspects of modern management that it feels unbelievable that his concepts were a part of the history. It is falsely assumed that as the society progresses, the older theories tend to lose their importance. The thing to be noted here is that these theories are based on basic human needs which do not change with time; the thing that changes is the method to fulfil those needs. Investigating earlier management theories is important because these theories are less complex and provide immediate solution to the problems. These theories basically help us to go to the root of the problem and understand its complexity. The better understanding we have about the problem, the easier it is to accomplish the objectives of the company. The following essay states the importance of the Taylor’s Scientific management theory and how it is implemented even today in the business world.
“Organizing: is assembling and coordinating the human, financial, physical, informational, and other resources needed to achieve goals” (Bateman & Snell, 2004, p. 17).
“Management is a process of planning, organisation, command, coordination, and control” (Morgan 2006, p.18). Rational organisation design is a bureaucratic method of management which emphasizes efficiency to achieve the end goal and the management of multiple companies have taken upon this system. Figures such as Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford have both shown and laid a path way for Rational Organisation which has become known as Taylorism and Fordism. The design has received criticism and both Taylor and Ford have been portrayed as villains with Taylor being called “enemy of the working man” (Morgan 2006, p.23) as the system dehumanised workers by taking all of the thought and skill from them and giving it to the managers this is because the tasks given were simple and repetitive. As staff needed little training they became an easily replaceable asset and thus more machine than human.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Konopaske, R. (2009). Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Understanding the structure of an organization plays a vital role in laying the blueprint for how a company will be managed and organized. It provides a well-defined framework that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each employee in a particular company. It shows how each employee interacts and works one another in achieving the goals of a company. In other words, organizational structure is a reflection of the working relationships that govern the workflow of the company. It has a profound effect on a company’s structural dimensions, which includes formalization, specialization, hierarchy and centralization.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Managing a workplace can be an eventful, yet stressful occupation, as motivating others while handling conflict can be challenging. In order to achieve success, the manager can explore many theories to help effectively manage the working environment. The implement of management theories help increase quality of service as well as increase the level of productivity within an organization (Hawthorne). “Not many managers use a singular theory or concept when implementing strategies in the workplace: They commonly use a combination of a number of theories, depending on the workplace, purpose and workforce” (Hawthorne). Contingency theory and Theory X and Theory Y are two of the many options that a manager can explore and adopt in order to effectively
"We learned about thesis and antithesis and five paragraphs and the whole bit, and learned to do it faster and faster. We repeated it in just the same way you throw basketballs at hoops over and over until you're good at it....All this indicated that I was a 'good writer' and I and teachers both probably believed I really was, and strictly because of this motor skill they'd trained me in." Dave wrote that in an e-mail discussion about theme writing. It made me wonder what the actual guidelines were for the so-called "Official Style," and what, if anything, was wrong with its formula. After all, this is what Universities demanded of us on a quarterly basis. If the scholars and the academe found it to be the standard, what could be wrong with it? I had done it, been good at it. I could turn out one of the "official" papers in a two hour time frame and get an "A". Big deal. Didn't that make me a good writer? What else is there? So I read Strunk and White's version of The Elements of Style to find out exactly what I had been doing while fulfilling assignment after assignment. Not that the subject matter was all that entertaining, but couldn't they have spruced up their writing with a little creativity, a little humor? I was so bored, I had a hard time wanting to pick the book up once it had fallen from my bored hands. Ah Ha! I do believe I had inadvertently stumbled upon the result of "Official Style" writing. It stifled the creative, humorous, and personal tendencies that I, and most creatively-intended people, personally look for in a piece of work we would like to tag as interesting.
Management plays a significant role in how business operates. The diversity of approaches to the theoretical and practical background of management has come up with several versions of what is meant by such key words as management and organization. The academia views expressed in relation to management theories take a different role than that prescribed to managers. There has not been any concrete definition of management even though the classic definition of Henri fayol still remains in contention to be the preferred choice after eighty years. In the context of what is required I would like to elaborate on the following journals.