by
Charles Lamson
A large number of people were involved in the development of the traditional strategy of organizing. One group, the bureaucratic theorists, attempted to improve organizations from the top down, by enhancing the effectiveness of administrative employees. These theorists are associated with sociologist Max Weber. A second group developed scientific management, an approach that tried to improve organizations from the bottom up, by reforming workers' tasks, efficiency and rewards. They were inspired by an engineer, Frederick Taylor. Both groups had the same primary concern - replacing the arbitrary, capricious and inefficient practices of contemporary organizations with systematically designed objective and fair systems of management and supervision.
Traditional Structure and Communication
All organizations are structured. It is structure that distinguishes organized enterprises from disorganized ones. Structure is important to members of organizations, because it clarifies each member's areas of responsibility. It makes formal authority relationships clear to everyone involved in the organization, and it lets everyone know where different kinds of organizational knowledge are located. It makes life predictable, and with predictability comes a feeling of stability and trust. However, the specific structure that emerges in an organization depends on a series of choices that employees make.
Bureaucracy and Structure Both the scientific managers and the bureaucratic theorists believed that organizations should be segmented into a matrix of formal positions defined by the specific tasks for which their occupants are responsible. The labor that must be performed in the organization is divided among various groups of employees who have the specialized skills necessary to complete their assigned tasks efficiently and effectively. The organizational chart also shows how the various positions are arranged so that lines of authority are clear to all. Usually this arrangement is hierarchical; supervisors are directly responsible to their own immediate supervisors for their own actions and for those of their immediate subordinates. It also implies that decision-making and control are centralized. This means that all the major decisions facing the organizations are made by the people who occupy the positions at the top of the organizational hierarchy. Of course all members of the organization are responsible for making routine decisions in their areas of responsibility.
In an organization that is structured bureaucratically, the positions are arranged in a hierarchy, Applicants are hired solely because they demonstrate the social expertise needed to perform their required tasks. Employees base their decisions solely on the policies, procedures and rules of the organization, and all their actions are to be documented in writing. Employees are empowered to make decisions in their areas of expertise.
The bureaucratic theorists valued this kind of structure primarily because they thought it would bring fairness and accountability to organizations, although they also believed that it would increase organizational efficiency. People would be hired based on their abilities -not on their political or personal connections. Everyone involved in the organization ---- if those tasks were performed well, the correct perople wouldf be rewarded well; if not the responsible people would be punished. Every employee would also be held responsible for communicating relevent information up and doown the chain of command. After they completed a probationary period, employees would be guaranteed a job for life and an adequate pension. As a result, they could not be pressured to show favoritism to powerful clients or supervisors. Organizations and all their members, would be accountable for their actions, and the organization would be efficient.
END
|
No comments:
Post a Comment