EVALUATION/ASSIGNMENT: 1. Identify and explain the different perspectives of the modern theories in organization. Organization theory is not an easy sell. Unless you are naturally drawn to the abstract, you probably expect this subject to be dry, unconnected to practical matters and perhaps a little boring. Even if you are enthusiastic about abstractions, it can be daunting to confront as many of them at one time as organization theory asks you to do. So why would anyone sign up to study this complex and difficult subject matter? There are many different answers to this question. For some, studying organization theory is motivated by curiosity. They wonder what it would be like to think like an organization, to get inside organizing processes far enough to reveal the intricate organizational patterns that make organizations understandable. Others are motivated by the attraction of stretching their minds in new ways. For example, organization theory draws on the sciences, the humanities and the arts, and so presents the intellectual challenge of thinking in interdisciplinary ways. Some turn to organization theory in the hope that it will improve their chances of becoming successful executives in business, government or non-profit organizations. Table 1.1 lists some of their specific reasons. For me, it was something else entirely. I came to organization theory reluctantly when it was foisted upon me as a requirement of my doctoral program. To say that I did not appreciate organization theory when I first encountered it would be putting it mildly. In a way, my initial disaffection with organization theory inspired this book. Once I began using organization theory, my experiences convinced me that this field of study is not only valuableit is interesting! Organization theory has helped me time and again to analyze complicated situations in the organizations with which I have worked, and to discover or invent effective and creative means for dealing with them. It has opened my mind to many aspects of life both inside and outside organizations that I previously took for granted, and it has given me both mental discipline and a wide-ranging knowledge of many different subjects. My amazement at how relevant and valuable organization theory can be caused me to reverse my initially low opinion of the field and find great enthusiasm for it. It is this change in my perception that led me to write this book. Through it I hope to share my insights
and enthusiasm with you as you discover the benefits and
attractions of organization theory for yourself. Whether you come to organization theory out of curiosity, a desire to improve your chances of success in life, or simply because somebody made you do it, there are three interrelated things I can tell you that will ease your way into this complex subject. The first involves theories and theorizing, the second concerns abstraction and its place in theory development, and the third explains why you need to study organizations from multiple perspectives.
2. Identify and discuss the various contributors to the modern
theory. Some other contributions to the modern theory among these are; Alfred Korzybski: he was am early contributor to the modern theory. He emphasized the process or dynamic nature of reality. Mary Parker Folliet: She suggested working things out in a co-operative spirit. She sought to force home the idea that every person counts as an individual apart of a group and apart of the society. Chester I Barnard: he published in 1938, a classic book that was the first comprehensive explanation of management and organization from the modern view. He described an organization as a dynamic social system of cooperative interaction with the purpose of satisfying individual needs. He considered the individuals the organization, suppliers and customers as part of the environment. Norbert Weiner; His work gave the first clear view of an organization as a system consisting of inputs, processes, outputs, feedback and environment. Ludwig von Bertalanffy: He described basic elements upon which the modern theory of organization and management are built, i.e., the modern theory and system analysis. 3. Is there any inextricable linkage/relationship among the various groups of contributors to theories of organizational growth? a. If not why not?
b. If yes, discuss further.
Clearly, one of the most dominant themes in the literature has been to define organizations from the perspective of their position on a growth curve. Cameron and Whetten (1983) reviewed thirty life-cycle models from the organizational development literature. They summarized the studies into an aggregate model containing four stages. The first stage is "entrepreneurial", characterized by early innovation, niche formation and high creativity. This is followed by a stage of "collectivity", where there is high cohesion and commitment among the members. The next stage is one of "formalization and control", where the goals are stability and institutionalization. The last stage is one of "elaboration", characterized by domain expansion and decentralization. The striking feature of these life-cycle models is that they did not include any notion of organizational decline. They covered birth, growth, and maturity, but none included decline or death. The classic S-curve typifies these life-cycle models. Whetten (1987) points out that these theories are a reflection of the 1960s and 1970s, two highly growth oriented decades. Land and Jarman (1992) have attempted to redefine the traditional S-curve that defines birth, growth, and maturity. The first phase in organizational growth is the entrepreneurial stage. The entrepreneur is convinced that their idea for a product or service is needed and wanted in the marketplace. The common characteristic of all entrepreneurs and new businesses is the desire to find a pattern of operation that will survive in the marketplace. Nearly all new businesses fail within the first five years. Land and Jarman (1992) argue that this is "natural", and that even in nature, cell mutations do not usually survive. This phase is the beginning of the S-curve.
The second phase in organizational growth is characterized by
a complete reversal in strategy. Where the entrepreneurial stage involves a series of trial and error endeavors, the next stage is the standardization of rules that define how the
organizational system operates and interacts with the
environment. The chaotic methods of the entrepreneur are replaced with structured patterns of operation. Internal processes are regulated and uniformity is sought. During this phase, growth actually occurs by limiting diversity. "Management procedures, processes, and controls are geared to maintain order and predictability" (Land and Jarman, 1992). This phase is the rapid rise on the S-curve. Organizational growth does not continue indefinitely. An upper asymptopic limit can be imposed by a number of factors. Land and Jarman (1992, p. 258) identify the most common reasons why organizations reach upper growth limits: Rapidly increasing internal and market place complexity in such areas a product proliferation and market divisions Internal competition for resources Increasing cost of manufacturing and sales Diminishing returns Declining share of the market Decreasing productivity gains Growing external pressures from regulators and influence groups Increasing impact of new technologies New and unexpected competitors The transition to the third phase involves another radical change in an organization. Most organizations are not able to make these changes, and they do not survive. "The organization must open up to permit what was never allowed in to become a part of the system, not only by doing things differently, but by doing different things" (Land and Jarman, 1992, p. 257). The organization needs to continue its core business, while at the same time engaging in inventing new business. This bifurcation is necessary because the entrepreneurial environment (of inventing business) is incompatible with the controlling environment of the core business.
The goal is a continuing integration of the new inventions into
the mainstream business, where a re-created organization emerges. The core business is changed by the inventions it assimilates, and the organization takes on a new form. Land and Jarman (1992) believe that the greatest challenge facing today's organizations is the transition from phase two to phase three. "Organizations defeat their best intentions by continuing to operate with essential beliefs that automatically perpetuate the second phase." (p. 264) There are several factors that contribute to organizational growth (Child and Kieser, 1981). The most obvious is that growth is a by-product of another successful strategy. A second factor is that growth is deliberately sought because it facilitates management goals. For example, it provides increased potential for promotion, greater challenge, prestige, and earning potential. A third factor is that growth makes an organization less vulnerable to environmental consequences. Larger organizations tend to be more stable and less likely to go out of business (Caves, 1970; Marris and Wood, 1971; Singh, 1971). Increased resources make diversification feasible, thereby adding to the security of the organization. Child and Kieser (1981) suggest four distinct operational models for organizational growth. 1) Growth can occur within an organization's existing domain. This is often manifest as a striving for dominance within its field. 2) Growth can occur through diversification into new domains. Diversification is a common strategy for lowering overall risk, and new domains often provide fertile new markets. 3) Technological advancements can stimulate growth by providing more effective methods of production. 4) Improved managerial techniques can facilitate an atmosphere that promotes growth. However, as Whetten (1987) points out, it is difficult to establish cause and effect in these models. Do technological advancements stimulate growth, or does growth stimulate the development of technological breakthroughs? With the lack of controlled experiments, it is difficult to choose between the chicken and the egg.
Effective management skills for successThe document discusses various management skills and concepts. The proposed title "TITLEEffective management skills for success