Organization Theories (Pols 206)

Introduction

Organization theories seek to explain how organizations function, drawing from disciplines such as sociology, economics, political science, engineering, and psychology. These theories are broadly grouped into formal/mechanistic theories and human relations theories, with Max Weber's model of bureaucracy standing as the foundational formal theory against which most later theories react.

Organization Theories

Various theories have been propounded to explain the dynamics of organizations — that is, how organizations operate and work. Most of these theories are propounded from specific disciplinary backgrounds, e.g. sociology, economics, political science, engineering, psychology, etc. Quite often they emphasize specific aspects of organizations at a time, e.g. their formal structures, employees, or the context/environment within which they operate (social, economic, political, physical, historical, etc.).

There exist three interrelated categories of organization theories:

1. Formal theories

2. Human relations theories

3. Modern organization theories

Image depicting organization 

These theories can further be classified into two broad categories:

1. Formal/mechanistic/structural/functionalist theory

2. Human relations/social relations theory

1. Formal Theory

These were propounded by the earliest writers on organizations; they view organizations from a purely technical or mechanical perspective. In other words, organizations were viewed as machines with various, but interrelated, parts performing various, but interrelated, functions. This meant organizations are formal structures, plans, and devices built up in accordance with clear-cut principles and rules, whose application enhances human efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and economy in the pursuit of overall objectives.

One example of the formal theories is Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy. Max Weber, a German sociologist, is unarguably to date the most influential theorist of organization — most theories on the subject are either additions to, or critiques of, his postulates. He studied various forms of organizations like the military and religious bodies, and structured an ideal or model organization. It was indeed an ideal (or "ideal-type") model of organization — a pure form of what an organization ought to be, in terms of structure and procedure, as a model. No organization really operates 100% using the features propounded by Weber.

A cursory look at Max Weber's writings shows the key elements or features of a bureaucracy/organization, which include:

1. Staff members serve only the impersonal duties of their offices — staff relations and offices are always characterized by formality.

2. There is a clear hierarchy of offices, with authority and directives emanating from above downwards.

3. The functions of the offices are clearly defined and specialized — that is, there is specialization or division of labour.

4. Recruitment into a bureaucratic organization is purely based on merit, possessing certain certificates, training, and experience. Responsibilities are assigned based on qualifications; promotion or advancement is also based on qualifications/performance.

5. Employees are paid salaries and wages, and pensions after retirement, and are graded based on positions, usually in hierarchical order.

6. An official's post is supposed to be his or her sole employment and means of livelihood.

7. There is a clear career structure, arranged in hierarchical order, which employees aspire to progress along, either by seniority or merit, according to the judgement of superiors.

8. Officials may appropriate neither the office nor the resources which go with it.

9. Officials are subjected to a unified control and disciplinary system.

All the above boil down to the following major features or elements of the Weberian bureaucratic model or construct:

A. Hierarchy of authority, responsibility, reward, and disciplinary system.

B. Operational rules and procedures.

C. Specialization or division of labour.

D. Merit as the core criteria for recruitment and promotion.

Merits of the Model

According to Weber's assumption, if properly operated as an ideal organization on the identified principles, bureaucracy definitely maximizes the realization of efficiency, effectiveness, impersonality, and economy. In Weber's own words, the chief merit of it is its technical efficiency, with a premium placed on precision, speed, expert control, continuity of direction, and optimal returns on inputs. The structure is one which approaches the complete elimination of personalized relationships and non-rational considerations.

Shortcomings of the Model

The Weberian bureaucratic model has been subjected to a lot of criticism. Volumes of literature have been produced, and alternative theories propounded in its place. The orthodox/essentialist contention centres on formal structure. Post critics maintain that the model can never exist in reality. Weber is said to have highlighted both the positive and negative aspects of the model in his construct.

It has been found, in theory but also in practice, that strict conformity or non-conformity to the features/characteristics identified by Weber can, on the other hand, impede the effective operations of an organization. These negative consequences have been referred to as the dysfunctions of bureaucracy. For example:

• Strict conformity to operational rules and procedures can lead to rigidities or red-tapism, causing anguish within an organization.
• Goal displacement — means become ends in their own right during operations.
• Excessive attachment to procedure has also led to problems perceived as a lack of fairness.

Conclusion

Weber's bureaucratic model remains the reference point for understanding formal organization structure, prized for the technical efficiency it can deliver through hierarchy, rules, specialization, and merit. Yet its real-world application has exposed persistent dysfunctions — rigidity, goal displacement, and impersonal unfairness — which subsequent theorists have used as the starting point for alternative and human relations-based approaches to organization theory.