USA: +1 415 256 4347 
Sign in
Question
| See attachments for assignment instructions. Our textbook readings came from the book: “Classics of Organization Theory” by Shafritz Ott Jang 8th edition chapters 1-4, The book is accessible here: Please do not use another book to reference unless it is the same book but an earlier version. Thank you. |
ANSWER
Revisiting Organizational Theory
One of the most notable observations that Perrow (1973) makes in his article is that the field of organizational analysis represents a tug-of-war between forces of darkness and forces of light. In this case, forces of darkness refer to the mechanical school of organization theory while forces of light connote the human relations school. From the perspective of the mechanical school, organizations are conceptualized as having centralized sources of authority, having clearly defined lines of authority, and being guided by rigid rules and regulations. Marked divisions of labor, specialization and expertise, and clear separation of employee and management roles are also other characteristics of organizations enshrined in the mechanical school of organizational theory. On the other hand, “forces of light” is a school that emphasize human relations and that draws inspiration from biological, rather than mechanical systems. Its features are delegation of authority, free communication, trust and openness, employee autonomy, interpersonal dynamics, and most importantly, concerns with the ‘whole person’ (Perrow, 1973). Amidst this struggle, however, this paper would argue that the human relations school has become more popular than its mechanical counterpart because the former considers social, political, cultural, environmental, and human dynamics that shape contemporary organizations and management practice.
The first aspect that makes human relations school more relevant in modern management is its belief that organizations exist to serve the needs of humans, not the other way round. There is an intricate connection between organizational and human needs, whereby people need salaries, careers, fair treatment, recognition, and job opportunities (Shafritz, Ott and Jang, 2011). On the other hand, organizations benefit from people’s talents, ideas, and energy. When the relationship between people and organizations is poor, one or both of the parties will suffer. For instance, people will seek to exploit the organization, with equal chances of being exploited. When there is a good fit between an organization and people, both parties stand to benefit (Akindele et al., 2016). In this case, the organization will get the much needed human talent and energy while employees will find meaningful and satisfying work.
Unlike the mechanical school, the development of human relations school is informed by the need to answer questions related to how organizations can encourage people to grow and develop. From the human relations school perspective, the assumption is that an organization’s creativity, prosperity, and flexibility are natural outcomes of employee growth and development (Shafritz, Ott and Jang, 2011). Again, human relations perspective redefines the relationship between people and organizations from dependence to co-dependence. An appropriate management theory is one that considers human resources as more important than organizations themselves. In human relations theory, the focus is on people and groups and how the two are interrelated. By placing very high value on humans, bureaucracy is reduced and things are done with greater transparency. The presence of an open culture means that people have more access to information that they require to make informed decisions about their future.
The other merit of human relations theory over mechanical school is that it sees the organization not as an independent variable, but as part of a complex biological system. Various aspects of this system are continually manipulated to change people’s behaviors in a manner that facilitates achievement of organizational goals. According to Shafritz, Ott, and Jang (2011), modern organizations are conceptualized as systems in which behavior occurs. Human behavior influences the organization just as the organization influences human behavior. Ideally, these are observations that place human relations school under themes of motivation, leadership, and organizational change. Issues such as the effect of work environment and interrelationships between individuals, teams and groups are also core to human relations theory of organizational management.
ORDER A SIMILAR PAPER LIKE THIS NOW
Because of its organic nature, human relations school captures the sophistication of modern organizations, including changes that occur with time, actual landscapes of organizational lifecycle, and prevailing ideals and fantasies about social control of uncertainties. Mechanical school worked well during the early years of Industrial Revolution because organizations were not as complex as they are nowadays (Perrow, 1973). During 19th-century, organizations were mainly manufacturing entities that employed unskilled and semiskilled workers to run them. However, things have ever since changed and manufacturing entities have been replaced by human services organizations, schools, hospitals, policing agents, churches, municipalities, and professional consultancy firms as dominant forms of organizations. Simple structures that characterized a 19th-century textile company have since been replaced by complex and contingent structures. More interdependencies have been created or discovered in multiple fronts, including the notion that organizations succeed when there is better management of people, work, and relationships (Shafritz, Ott and Jang, 2011). While the need to exercise control is an integral feature of both past and modern organizations, the work and activities that are to be controlled have become more complex today than in the past. In addition, modern organizations are faced with demands to legitimize different aspects of control they exercise over people because the contemporary workforce is more skilled, and as such, demanding more rights and greater recognition.
The other defining feature of human relations school is that that it sees people as participants, rather than objects of control, like in the case of the forces of dark. Since the industrial revolution period, human rights and schooled capacities of these human participants have grown significantly. As Shafritz, Ott and Jang (2011) put is, “participants in modern organizations are more professionalized than ever, and for this reason, they carry with themselves legitimated agency.” Unlike in the past when organizations were depicted as static entities working towards present goals, the role of the environment has become pronounced in the present times. In this case, organizations not only rely on people within them, but also on their environment for human, financial, and other material resources. For instance, a vehicle manufacturing company cannot succeed if interests of people within and outside them are not well represented. In other words, an organization will remain stable if it is sufficiently flexible to effectively respond to conflict and interests of its stakeholders.
In conclusion, scientific management, which is a brainchild of mechanical school of organization theory, worked well in the 19th century and first half of 20th century because firms were less complex during that time. The dominant organizations during this period were railroad corporations, light manufacturing industries, the military, and the church (Perrow, 1973). However, modern organizations have grown in complexity and the need to manage human relations has become inevitable, hence popularization of human relations school. Today, the most successful organizations are the ones that serve the interests of their people, rather than manipulating people for their gains. Since all humans have needs and interests that underlie their motivational systems, people will demonstrate higher commitment to organizational goals when these needs are served well. Human relations school is built on this premise.
References
Akindele, S., Afolabi, Y., Pitan, O. & Gidado, T. (2016). The Threads of Organizational Theory: A Phenomenological Analysis. Management, 6(5), 158-184.
Perrow, C. (1973). The Short and Glorious History of Organizational Theory. Organizational Dynamics, 2(1): 2-15
Shafritz, J. M., Ott, S. J., & Jang, Y. S. (2011). Classics of Organizational Theory (7th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
