Making Sense of Organizations Essay Example

which joint action takes place. Their products make up the infrastructure of communities, determining the background for organizations of subsequent generations.

It’s through organizations, that people pursue tasks too expansive in scope to be achieved by families or individuals acting alone. As a result, organizations arbitrate the influence of persons on the bigger society. Wherever an organization becomes successful in attracting adequate people and resources, centers of possible social action are formed. Management, on the other hand, refers to as the process of designing and maintaining an environment in which individuals, working together in groups, efficiently accomplish preferred aims. Basically, management involves the acquirement of managerial proficiency, and efficiency in the following main areas: problem-solving, organizational leadership, human resource management and administration.

Historical background of organizations and management

Opportunities for the formation of unique-purpose organizations were boosted by urbanization and increased with social, economic and political delineation (Padgett & Powell 2012). The resources necessary to create organizations grew more plentiful with the spread of literacy and advancement of a money economy. The increase of political and legal institutions fashioned a predictable, stable environment within which entrepreneurs could anticipate appropriating the gains from the organizational start. As a result, organizations, as opposed to families or individuals, turned out to be the units of stratification in the social order. Correspondingly, the methodical development of management philosophy is viewed, in general, as beginning at the end of the nineteenth century with the surfacing of big industrial organizations and the resulting problems linked with their structure as well as administration.

Organizations are fashioned by the circumstances in which they are set up, and so existing organizations mirror the impact of their past origins

in societies distinguished by rising affluence and competition over the distribution and control of wealth (Cummings 2008). Novelties in organizational structures, set in motion by the intensification of supportive logistical, financial and legal infrastructures in 19th-century industrialized societies, stimulated the development of enormous organizational projects. For instance, in the United States, big national railroads surfaced as people struggled to discover methods of surmounting the problems of managing the passage of consignments across hundreds of miles of rocky terrain. Around the 20th century, the manufacture of mass-market consumption commodities, such as televisions and automobiles, was initiated by the increase of large vertically incorporated manufacturing companies. Likewise, in the public segment, welfare-state communal guiding principles are now implemented through big government organizations that can handle thousands of cases on a universalistic and impersonal basis.

After the United States found itself behind in the competition into space early in the 1960s, the then President Kennedy ensured the nation put a man on the moon in the decade, and he formed a huge organization named the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NAS) to complete the undertaking. In numerous industries, employment brokers and agencies affect the allotment of well-paying jobs as well as structure the careers of employees in the industry. For instance, privileged talent agencies in Hollywood have an important impact on the earnings and employment rates of movie and television authors.

Main tasks in numerous domains are tackled not by solitary organizations, but by a set of mutually dependent organizations. The making of scientific study now happens mostly in technical systems consisting of laboratories, universities, government agencies and private firms. Policy domains comprising of nonprofit associations, corporations, government bodies and

political groups collectively manipulate governmental agenda setting and policy formulation (Padgett & Powell 2012). The National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 permitted businesses that usually compete with each other to set up development and research consortia for carrying out research on products or processes that profit the whole industry.

Inter-organizational understandings between university laboratories, hospitals, and doctors have been formed by the National Cancer Institute to harmonize cancer treatment and research, as well as substituted asylums for offering mental health services at the societal and community levels. Towards the end of the 20th century, there seemed to be a hesitant feeling about the sense organizations in peoples’ lives. First, organizations could be considered as servants, enabling a noticeably more full and varied life than could have otherwise been possible. Positively, history demonstrates organizations serving societal needs. Second, the growth of an organizational society could be viewed as a proof of people dominated and enslaved by organizations, dependent on impersonal and arbitrary dictates, and almost powerless to fight back.

Executives may develop a dependence upon bureaucratic rules, symbols and status. Inventiveness may be subdued and once a situation is not enclosed by a complete set of procedures or rules there may lack adaptation or flexibility to changing situations. Responsibilities and position in the organization may lead to officious bureaucratic conduct. There also may be a tendency to hide administrative processes from outsiders. Formal relations may lead to pigeonhole behavior and a lack of sensitivity to individual problems or undertakings.

Organizational theory

Theory is the way we comprehend and try to explain a phenomenon. Organizational theory research on organizations to spot the structures and patterns they use to work out challenges,

capitalize on effectiveness and output, and meet the prospects of stakeholders. Organizational theory applies these patterns to create normative theories of how organizations operate best. For that reason, organizational theory can be employed to find out the greatest ways to operate an organization or spot organizations that are run in such a manner that they are expected to be thriving. While traditional theories particularly taylorism introduces scientific management principles into organizational theory, modern theories incorporate progressive aspects including organization culture, organizational politics and emotional behavior in organizations.

Organizational theory progress

The traditional or classical theory writers considered the organization in terms of its formal structure as well as rationale. They placed prominence on the planning of job, the technical necessities of the organization, and the assumption of logical and rational behavior as well as principles of management (Bucheli & Wadhwani 2014). The scrutiny of an organization in this approach is associated with work done originally early in the 20th century by various writers. Two main ‘sub-groupings’ of the classical perspectives are scientific management and bureaucracy.

Organizations operating consistent with the principles of scientific management are distinguished by several ideas which include; clear divisions of labor, high level of specialization in occupations along with the experience and training of workers, suppositions that employees are motivated mainly by economic returns, separate hierarchy of authority (Weick 2012. There was strong reaction against, and criticisms of, scientific management methods from the personnel who found the work uninteresting and requiring little expertise. Scientific management methods as well gave production managers a riskily high degree of unrestrained authority.

A kind of structure found in many major organizations is bureaucracy. It has various characteristics including; stable and formal structure of

authority, printed records kept over time, stable and all-inclusive system of rules, specific training and expertise, official duties come first, clear hierarchy of authority or pecking order , career employment, managers free to allot and reposition resources, managers distinct from owners of organizations. The perception of bureaucracy has a number of drawbacks and has been subject to harsh criticism. The over-emphasis on record keeping, paperwork and rules and procedures may become more significant in its own right than as a means to an end.

Taylorism

One of the early pioneers of management theory was Frederick W. Taylor (1856-1915). Taylor created a new, and at the time radical approach to managing, known as scientific management. He conducted researches into how personnel or machines carried out tasks, measuring and evaluating each measurable feature of the labor. He then concluded standard times along with sequences for the conclusion of each job. With these details, Taylor offered managers practical manufacture standards per man- and machine-hour. The hypothesis of modernization is linked to evolutionary philosophy.

Taylorism matter in this essay because on a larger scale, he revolutionized managerial thought and laid the foundation for the formation of many other management systems in decades to come. Therefore taylorism set the stage for progress which this essay assesses. The demonstration of Frederick Taylor's theory of scientific management was a key step forward in traditional perspective on management function. At the same time, as management theory evolved steadily Taylor's theory was relentlessly criticized and its function reduced considerably to the point that now it is argued if scientific management still survives. It is not difficult to find instances of Scientific Management in nowadays contemporary world; we

can observe the car manufacturing companies which use a related approach plus the computer producing plants even a number of hospitals, nearly all of them work more proficiently due to the employment of Scientific Management.

Criteria to assess progress that I would use must take into account the Idea of Progress which is the suggestion that improvement in science, social and technology organization can make an advance in the human state. Scientific management stresses on profit maximization by using the personnel through restricted training, monetary incentives under managers, mechanism, though it has been examined and criticized greatly for its temporary spotlight on profit, treating employees as a machine like forms which ultimately argued to result unconstructive performance in the long run. As a result, a change towards behavioral study as well as organizational culture surfaced and social factors have been embraced to tackle the challenges which Taylor’s method as well as other classical theorists neglected.

The development of globalization and technology inspired the modern management approach to amend and balance the scientific management by adding-on the human aspect and their involvements within an organization rather than replacing the traditional approach. For that reason, there have been progress been progress in organizational theory from Taylor’s scientific management to modern management theories which includes behavioral science. Taylor initiated science in management so as to augment ‘industrial effectiveness while Modern Management stresses on profit maximization through worker contribution and satisfaction.

Organizational culture

Taylor did not mention organizational culture, but said it was wholly top-down. This has improved since we are beginning to get another facet of management in an organization.Organizational culture is considered as a system of shared beliefs, assumptions and values, and that governs how people

act in organizations. These collective values have a strong power on the people in the organization and state how they perform their jobs, act or dress. each organization grows and maintains a exclusive culture, which gives boundaries and guidelines for the behavior of the affiliates of the organization. In my perspective, introduction of organizational culture makes us question Taylor’s principles of management due to its failure to consider aspects of behavioral science and it as well represents an organizational and management progress.

Organization Politics

Organizational politics are casual, informal, and at times out of sight efforts to sell ideas, increase power, influence an organization, or achieve other targeted goals. Human beings are political in nature and believe in their own self-interest or in the interest of the community which can impact on an organization. Organizations present a power pedestal for persons. From a solely economic viewpoint, organizations live to create a excess of income over costs by meeting needs in the market. But organizations as well are political constitutions which provide chances for individuals to build up careers and so provide stages for the expression of personal motives and interests. The growth of careers, mainly at high professional and managerial levels, depends on buildup of power as the medium for transforming personal interests into actions which sway other people.

Taking into account this, it would be unwise to ignore political behaviour. Organizational politics dynamics, another aspect ignored by Taylor’s scientific management as well as other classical theorists, represents, in my view a progress in organizational theory.

Emotional behaviour in organization

Emotions are temporary feelings that result particularly from an identified occurrence. In the commerce world, emotions can have a enormous effect

on the overall morale, performance and productivity of employees. The function of emotions is double. They can be used to generate a positive work atmosphere or, if ignored, can cause a negative atmosphere of work. Both types of emotions are infectious in the place of work, which makes it even more significant for managers to have a capacity to interpret employee emotions. Managers have to to control positive emotions or get rid of negative emotions at work so as to uphold a healthy work atmosphere. In understanding the role of emotions in the way organizations functions for me explains progress because, Taylor didn’t even think about this before.

Modern four-frame approach to understanding organizations and management

Contemporary organizations are complex with the varying nature of our technology-rich, fast-paced, competitive, technology-rich, global world only adds to their complexity. Organizations are at this time being considered finely-tuned machines manufacturing goods or services, extensive families meeting human wants and using individual capacities for a larger good, political jungle with lasting dissimilarities and competition for limited resources, and theaters of job life where organizational functions are played with artistry and drama. These images flow from the work of Bolman and Deal (2008) to blend and put together the key traditions in organizational theory into four diverse areas: theories about culture, people, organizational structure and political dynamics.

Each of the four areas, which the writers call frames, has its own scrutiny of the organizational landscape, entrenched in different academic sectors. Each as well has its own underlying assumptions, point of focus, action-logic, major advocates and path to organizational effectiveness. Each frame takes into account a significant slice of organizational actuality but alone is

deficient. Dependence on any one viewpoint can cause mistaking a fraction of the turf for the full, or to misconstruing the core cause of challenges or events. Jointly, though, the four frames exploit the pluralism of the organizational theory foundation, acknowledging its affluence and complication while organizing the main elements for simple recall, access, and application.

Organizations as machines

The structural frame, whose image of organization is machine, considers organization a rational system. It strengthens the significance of scheming structural arrangements that line up with an organization’s environment, goals, technology, tasks and strategy. Differentiation of job tasks provides for lucidity of contribution and purpose but necessitates appropriate integration and coordination. Its disciplinary roots are sociology, industrial psychology, and economics with a frame emphasis on rationality, formal roles and relationships.

Underlying assumptions here are that; structure must align with organizational goals, organizations exist to achieve established goals, coordination and control ensure integration of individual and group efforts, specialization and division of labor increase efficiency and enhance performance, organizations work best when rationality prevails, problems result from structural deficiencies and are remedied by restructuring and analysis. Path to organizational effectiveness in this approach involves; clear division of labor; creation of appropriate mechanisms to integrate individual, group, and unit efforts,

In a number of companies decisions anchored in the structural frame churn out excellent outcome. One illustration of a thriving company that principally employs the structural frame is UPS (United Parcel Service). The structure at United Parcel Service makes the workers more fruitful. United Parcel Service recognizes that it has a structural culture and they understand that the main threat to it is bureaucracy. Knowing these threats permits leaders and managers to

be alert as well as take measures to check them. A company that employs the structural frame, such as UPS, flourishes because it is not flexible (Gallos 2008).

The shortcoming of the structural frame is that it risks overlooking all that falls outside the rational compass of organization charts tasks procedures and policies. Depending too much on the structural frame can as well negatively affect innovation, along with make companies extra less resilient and inflexible. When managers in companies who depend a lot on a structural frame are efficient they act as an architect and analyst. When they are unproductive they can be too tyrannical or bureaucratic (Bolman & Deal 2008).

Organization as a family

The human resource frame, whose image of organization is family, considers the symbiotic relationship between organizations and individuals. This means that individuals require opportunities to articulate their skills and talents while organizations require human contribution and energy to fuel their endeavors. Once the fit is accurate, both profit. Productivity is more when people feel aggravated to bring their finest to their job. The human resource frame has ancestry in the effort of such decisive theorists. It also generates the fields of change management as well as organization development (Gallos 2006) and emphasizes many of our pop cultural convictions about organizing and good leading. The disciplinary roots here are psychology and social psychology with a frame emphasis on the fit between individual and the organization.

The underlying assumption here is that organizations are present to provide human needs which mean that both need each other, if the fit between organization and individual is meager, both or one suffer. Each exploits or is subjugated, when the

fit between organization and individual is fine, both gain. The path to organizational effectiveness in this approach involves tailoring the organization to attain individual needs along with training the individual in pertinent skills to attain organizational needs.

Looking at my own perception as it relates to organizations and management, I would have to state that the human resources frame is most vital of the four frames. Whether considering the human resource approaches similar to employing the appropriate people or the idea capacity building within organizations, the fact is that people compose an organization along with the attitudes and the skill sets they bring to work daily. A meticulous investment in the human resources facet of an organization can go a long way in influencing success or failure (Driskill & Brenton 2005).

There are examples booming companies that have exploited the benefits of the human resource frame. One instance of a flourishing human resource framed company is FedEx. They emphasize in their website that they take care of their people who in turn, will deliver the flawless service demanded by their customers and hence look forward to being rewarded with the productivity necessary to safeguard their future otherwise called FedEx Culture. Their achievements are noteworthy; it often shows up on top places to work listing as well as most fashionable companies. FedEx appreciates what many of the human resource framed companies appreciate - that motivated worker can aid organizations to become successful. Rather than focus on control from top, which the structural frame stresses, the human resource frame supposes that workers will do the correct thing, and they don’t have to be micromanaged. Organizations that depend on the

human resource frame make verdicts that place significance on keeping workers happy.

A major downside of the human resources frame is that it over and over again depends on a romanticized observation of human personality in which everybody hungers for collaboration and growth (Bolman & Deal 2008).This frame also ignores some significant features of power that the political frame integrates as well.

Organization as a jungle

The political frame perceives an organization as a jungle which is to say a field of continuing conflict, differences, scarce resources, and power negotiations. The diversity of skills, values, interests, worldviews, beliefs and behaviors among the personnel are inevitable organizational facts. They are usually contaminated, but can also be a cause of innovation and creativity when acknowledged and efficiently managed (Thomas, 2006). The disciplinary root here is political science with a frame emphasis on allocation of power and scare resources.

Underlying assumptions here are that: all vital organizational decisions engross limited resources; differences last among coalition members’ behaviors, values, information, beliefs, interests, world views; limited resources and enduring disparities make conflict foreseeable and authority a key asset; organizations are alliances of dissimilar interest groups and individuals. The path to organizational effectiveness in this perspective involves manage conflict, bargain, build coalitions and set agendas.

One general instance of this is the relationship between shareholders and management, whose main concerns are not always allied. A shareholder might fancy the organization to minimize costs so as to increase profits, while the management might desire to improve quality as an alternative. Managing the diversity of demands is a daily struggle for management and leaders, and if they overlook one of these demands they will likely not be thriving.

Effective managers and leaders who function regularly in a political frame are negotiators and advocates, but they are unproductive when they are corrupt or act like a thug, con artist (Bolman & Deal 2008).

The political frame’s drawback is that it can focus too heavily on conflict and mistrust instead of encouraging collaboration. The political frame as well ignores the human resource frame’s stress on the worker’s desire to do a good job.

Organization as a drama

Lastly, the theater image of the symbolic frame considers organizational life as an ongoing drama which means individuals coming together to generate meaning, context and culture as they play their allocated tasks as well as bring self-expression and artistry into their job. Proper theater stimulates the moral thoughts, that is, it engages heart and head. Organizations that deal with the symbolic concerns surrounding their own theater of job instill daily efforts with energy, soul creativity. Its disciplinary root is social and cultural anthropology with frame emphasis on meaning, purpose, and values.

Underlying assumptions here are that: activity and meaning are slackly coupled which means people construe experiences in a different way; people create symbols for predictability, conflict resolution, hope, direction; processes and events may be more significant for what they articulate than what they generate; what is most vital is not what occurs but what it signifies to people; culture is the bond that glue organizations through collective beliefs and values. The path to organizational effectiveness in this perspective involves: make common vision; invent pertinent symbols, rituals and ceremonies; manage to mean; instill soul, passion, and creativity (Driskill & Brenton 2005).

In an organization that depends on symbolic frames, the Chief Executive Officer

(CEO) is frequently seen as a cultural manager for the organization, and they can act similar to a forecaster or a poet if they are efficient. When leaders in a symbolic organization are not efficient they can be considered fanatic and charlatan (Bolman & Deal 2008). The practices in a symbolically framed organization are only useful if all workers buy into it, that is, they cannot be blank gestures masquerading as customs. A lot of features of the symbolic frame can be misconstrued, and care must be taken so the practices and stories are not seen by workers or customers as exploitation.

Conclusion

The traditional or classical theory writers considered the organization and management in terms of its formal structure as well as rationale. They placed prominence on the planning of job, the technical necessities of the organization, and the assumption of logical and rational behavior as well as principles of management. Modern perspectives, however, considers it imperative to view organizations and management through numerous frames as well as incorporates progressive aspects including organization culture, organizational politics and emotional behavior in organizations. It is essential to use numerous frames because of all frames complement and influence each other. Viewing organizational hitches through every frame ensures the subject matter is to be secluded, and it offers several solutions. While every frame might not be required for each circumstance, having the capacity to employ numerous frames will produce better outcome than depending on just one frame.

Therefore, our understanding of organizations and management since beginning of 20th century has progressed from use of formal structure and rationale perspective to the extent of using a multi-frame perspective, progressive aspects including organization

culture, organizational politics and emotional behavior in organizations. This essay makes sense of organizations by significantly selecting metaphors based on personal lens which is enclosed by previous cognition and experiences. Temporarily, current examples are applied to illustrate the metaphors. This study suggested that positive management consist in art of construction that support individuals to renew and separate when there is a threat as well as a process that encourages cautious sense making. Humility and wisdom are both necessary as the heart of the organizing devices. In my opinion, I recommend that when thinking of an organization as an individual, it is a human being with mechanistic function and it has a brain as well as unique personality.

References:

• Gallos, J. V. (2006). Introduction in Joan V. Gallos. Organization development. San Francisco:
  Jossey-Bass.
• Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing Leadership in Joan V. Gallos (ed.). Business
  leadership (2nd.ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Thomas, D. A. (2006). Diversity as strategy, in Joan V. Gallos (ed.). Organization development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Weick, K. E. (2012). Making Sense of the Organization Volume 2: The Impermanent
  Organization. New York, NY, John Wiley & Sons.
• Bucheli, M., & Wadhwani, R. D. (2014). Organizations in time: history, theory, methods.
  Cummings, T. G. (2008). Handbook of organization development. Los Angeles, Sage Publications.
• Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, Princeton University Press
• Gallos, J. V. (2008). Business leadership: a Jossey-Bass reader. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
• Bolman, L. G. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons.
• Driskill, G. W., & Brenton, A. L. (2005). Organizational culture in action: a cultural analysis workbook. Thousand Oaks, Sage.