The purpose of this paper is to summarize, assess, and synthesize eleven chapters across two primary texts listed as the required reading for the second week of POS 543. First, I’ll identify some of the central themes discussed across the readings. Second, I will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the various contributions to the literature on organizational theory relative to the major schools of thought.
The required reading for week two offered a glimpse of the classic theories relative to the study of organization. Early theorists conceived and in some cases, implemented their organizational strategies with the goal of increasing efficiencies and understanding of organizational dynamics and behavior. Through intentional design and experimentation, a number of foundational studies and theories were established. These “schools of thought” were differentiated by support for either rational or natural systems as well as administrative practices. Central themes across the literature examined the primary differences between rational and natural systems and the selected schools of thought. Theories such as “Taylor’s Scientific Management”, “Fayol’s Administrative Theory”, “Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy”, and “Simon’s Theory of Administration Behavior” (Scott and Davis, 2007) were all associated with describing the rational system. Selected schools of thought associated with the natural system included “Mayo and the Human Relations School”, “Barnard’s Cooperative System”, “Selznick’s Institutional Approach”, and “Parson’s AGIL Schema” (Scott and Davis, 2007). Within each of these schools of thought emerged key concepts including the division of labor, unity of command, span of control, functional analysis, authority, and coordination and specialization. According to Scott and Davis (2007) a rational system view reveals organizations as “instruments designed to attain specified goals” (p.35). Rational systems embody the actions of “information, knowledge, efficiency, optimization, implementation, and design” (Scott and Davis, 2007, p. 36). Taylor’s Scientific Management supports the idea of the rational system and particularly efficiency, optimization, and implementation through his careful study of individual worker’s tasks and performance measures. The end goal was to create a production environment that delivered “maximum output with the minimum input of energies and resources” (Scott and Davis, 2007, p.41). Management of the organization was also an important factor for Scientific Management to address. Taylor wanted to transform management behavior through the application of scientific methods and precise measures. Aspects of Taylor’s approach persist today, particularly in the search for innovative processes that might further yield efficiencies as well as the measure of an employee’s performance. It was easy to appreciate the idea of hiring deliberately as well as training employees comprehensively. At the same time that Taylor was working to scientifically adjust work processes and management, Fayol was developing his strategies for improving administrative structures within organizations, from the top down, rather than the bottom up (Scott and Davis, 2007). …show more content…
Unity of Command, Span of Control, and specialization were critical components of Fayol’s transformation of administrative activities. Span of control in particular focused on the correct or optimal number of individuals any one manager should supervise. Unity of command focused on the chain of authority and communication so that one worker reported up through one supervisor (Scott and Davis, 2007; Fayol, 2016). Gulick was an advocate of coordination and specialization through effective work division. He identified three limitations to the concept which focused on the amount of work one man can accomplish with a specific set of skills; the consideration of technology and customs on how work could or should not be divided; and recognizing when subdivision of work does not create a gain (Gulick, 2016). Gulick also determined that there were two primary avenues for achieving coordination within an organization, by the structure of the organization itself or through an idea that dominated the effort of the workers. Weber’s work on defining the characteristics of a bureaucracy focused on the hierarchy of the supervision environment; documenting processes for clear management practices; offering training to develop expertise of management; commitment from the management personnel; and that management follows established and documented rules (Weber, 2016). Weber’s work helps to define the types of authority that occur in administrative systems as well as the fundamental characteristics of bureaucratic systems (Scott and Davis, 2007). Natural systems, unlike rational systems, are viewed as “fundamentally, social groups attempting to adapt and survive in their
The required reading for week two offered a glimpse of the classic theories relative to the study of organization. Early theorists conceived and in some cases, implemented their organizational strategies with the goal of increasing efficiencies and understanding of organizational dynamics and behavior. Through intentional design and experimentation, a number of foundational studies and theories were established. These “schools of thought” were differentiated by support for either rational or natural systems as well as administrative practices. Central themes across the literature examined the primary differences between rational and natural systems and the selected schools of thought. Theories such as “Taylor’s Scientific Management”, “Fayol’s Administrative Theory”, “Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy”, and “Simon’s Theory of Administration Behavior” (Scott and Davis, 2007) were all associated with describing the rational system. Selected schools of thought associated with the natural system included “Mayo and the Human Relations School”, “Barnard’s Cooperative System”, “Selznick’s Institutional Approach”, and “Parson’s AGIL Schema” (Scott and Davis, 2007). Within each of these schools of thought emerged key concepts including the division of labor, unity of command, span of control, functional analysis, authority, and coordination and specialization. According to Scott and Davis (2007) a rational system view reveals organizations as “instruments designed to attain specified goals” (p.35). Rational systems embody the actions of “information, knowledge, efficiency, optimization, implementation, and design” (Scott and Davis, 2007, p. 36). Taylor’s Scientific Management supports the idea of the rational system and particularly efficiency, optimization, and implementation through his careful study of individual worker’s tasks and performance measures. The end goal was to create a production environment that delivered “maximum output with the minimum input of energies and resources” (Scott and Davis, 2007, p.41). Management of the organization was also an important factor for Scientific Management to address. Taylor wanted to transform management behavior through the application of scientific methods and precise measures. Aspects of Taylor’s approach persist today, particularly in the search for innovative processes that might further yield efficiencies as well as the measure of an employee’s performance. It was easy to appreciate the idea of hiring deliberately as well as training employees comprehensively. At the same time that Taylor was working to scientifically adjust work processes and management, Fayol was developing his strategies for improving administrative structures within organizations, from the top down, rather than the bottom up (Scott and Davis, 2007). …show more content…
Unity of Command, Span of Control, and specialization were critical components of Fayol’s transformation of administrative activities. Span of control in particular focused on the correct or optimal number of individuals any one manager should supervise. Unity of command focused on the chain of authority and communication so that one worker reported up through one supervisor (Scott and Davis, 2007; Fayol, 2016). Gulick was an advocate of coordination and specialization through effective work division. He identified three limitations to the concept which focused on the amount of work one man can accomplish with a specific set of skills; the consideration of technology and customs on how work could or should not be divided; and recognizing when subdivision of work does not create a gain (Gulick, 2016). Gulick also determined that there were two primary avenues for achieving coordination within an organization, by the structure of the organization itself or through an idea that dominated the effort of the workers. Weber’s work on defining the characteristics of a bureaucracy focused on the hierarchy of the supervision environment; documenting processes for clear management practices; offering training to develop expertise of management; commitment from the management personnel; and that management follows established and documented rules (Weber, 2016). Weber’s work helps to define the types of authority that occur in administrative systems as well as the fundamental characteristics of bureaucratic systems (Scott and Davis, 2007). Natural systems, unlike rational systems, are viewed as “fundamentally, social groups attempting to adapt and survive in their