![]()
Chapter 1
Organization and Organizational Theory
To better understand self-organization, it is necessary to have a basic knowledge on organization and organizational theory. Some details can be found in Zhao and Zhang (2013).
1.1Definitions
1.1.1Organization
The definition of organization has been updated and improved over the past hundred years.
Daft and Armstrong (2007) treated organization as a goal-directed social entity that is designed as a deliberately structured and coordinated dynamic system connecting with the external environment. An organization cannot thrive without successful and powerful traits. Faced with threats and chances, it should be sensitive to external changes and keep adapting and learning (Hannah and Lester, 2009). Learning is not limited to the scope of knowledge per se but a âproblem-oriented actionâ or âknowingâ (Kuhn and Jackson, 2008). Roberts (2007) discussed contemporary organization by summarizing several influential books and has managed to address relevant problems. Rashman et al. (2009) reviewed the literature on organizational learning and knowledge relevant with public organizations particularly, and maintained their uniqueness by using the dynamic model. The external situations in the environment are also vital issues. Analyzing the community context will revitalize the research on organizations (Freeman and Audia, 2006), since organizations function with other social units interdependently. King et al. (2010) noted that we should locate the organization in a wider social landscape and then explore its uniqueness as a social actor.
In addition to external conditions, internal components are important. An organization cannot survive or exist without rational structure and design of the system. Rank (2008) argued that although considerable researches aim at unveiling the complicated function of organizational systems, little attention has been given to the âstructural interdependencies between formal organizations and informal networks.â
Santos and Eisenhardt (2005) stressed organizational boundaries, which may facilitate the understanding of organizations. Kulic and Baker (2008) also held that it was difficult to draw boundaries clearly under real-world situations. As a response, they proposed another method to cover various views of organizations in a simulative environment using computational organizational theory.
Organization can be classified into two basic categories, i.e., self-organization and external-organization (Zhang, 2013). Major difference between the two categories of organizations is whether the organizational instructions/forces come from outside the system or from inside the system. The organization with organizational instructions/forces from inside the system is called self-organization.
1.1.2Organizational theory
Organizational theory is the sociological study of formal social organizations, such as businesses and bureaucracies, and their interrelationship with the environment in which they operate (Wikepedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_theory). Tompkins (2005) argued that organizational theory was the study of how and why complicated organizations behave the way they are. A complex organization is always too enormous and structurally differentiated to be effectively represented by a single individual. Organizational theory is neither a single of theory nor an integrated body of information but a field of studies which cover various scientific fields.
Donaldson (2003) viewed organizational theory as a positive science. Driven by the environment, scientific methods validate and testify these positive but normative theories. So far, organizational science has made a huge progress by using the positivist approach. Organizational theory has proved to have strong potentiality in the future with regards to the positivist approach.
Hatch and Yanow (2003) called organizational theory an interpretive science. Many interpretive researchers held that social world and natural world ought to be ascertained in different ways.
Willmott (2003) viewed organizational theory as a critical science. While Chia (2003) thought organizational theory as a postmodern science and drew our attention to the requirement for managers and policymakers. Obviously they were more aware of the basic information and situation of our society and industries.
Ocassionally, some peculiar things could boost our understanding on organizational theory. Jones and Munro (2005) examined the works of eighteen researchers on modern organizational theory in the last twenty years. Many topics and debates were discussed including some basic concepts and postmodernism. Warner (2007) mentioned modern literary Guru Franz Kafka. His works shed light on the deep examination of organizations, and were further compared with Max Weber. In addition, some researchers explored the organizational theory in terms of its logics with novel insights and methods (Hannan, 2007; Kamps, 2009; Durand, 2008), which was mainly shaped in the book, Logics of Organizational Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies (Hannan, 2007). However, this approach focuses on the entire process of theory-shaping, which deviates from the traditional way of organizational ecology (Kamps, 2009). Audia et al. (2006) connected the theories of organizational ecology and social network and dug into the variations âin rates of foundings over geographic localesâ affected by the structure of relations in various populations.
Organizational design is a major field in organizational theory. It is becoming more important due to a series of development trends, such as advances in information technology, attempts by large global economies to rapidly transform the organizational infrastructure of their administration, the professionalization of the non-governmental organization (NGO) and charity sectors, and increasing attempts of multinational corporations to exploit globally distributed intellectual resources, etc. (Puranam, 2012).
1.2History of Organizational Theory
Organizational theory has appeared for a very long time in history, which aims to pursue scientism, managerialism, and enhanced efficiency and effectiveness (Ăsdiken and Leblebici, 2001). It is an ancient but also modern science. Organization research has occupied its status in science since Aristotleâs era (Rosvall and Bergstrom, 2011). The research of organizations began its journey along with the human civilization. However, organizational theory was not recognized as a science until the 1960s (Cunliffe, 2008). Since the 19th century, in particular the era of industrial revolution, organization studies have quickly developed, especially in such areas as socio-political questions (Wolin, 1961).
According to Cunliffe (2008), the development of organizational theory can be divided into four stages: (1) classical and scientific management/modernism; (2) systems and contingency theories [contingency theory is a class of behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. Instead, the optimal course of action is contingent (dependent) upon the internal and external situation. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_theory]; (3) social constructionism (social constructionism, or the social construction of reality, is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism); and (4) postmodernism (postmodernism is a late 20th century movement in the arts, architecture, and criticism that was a departure from modernism. Postmodernism includes skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, history, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism). The first stage is classical and scientific management stage, and Adam Smith, Carl Marx, Taylor, Weber, et al., were representative researchers during this period. These researchers have drawn and distilled various theories from routine and social activities, and built fundamental concepts of organizations. The second stage, system and contingency theories â i.e. modernism â was led by such researchers as Parsons, Woodward, etc. They emphasized the optimization of production efficiency and stressed the need of treating organization as a sophisticated system (Barzilai, 2010). The third stage, social constructionism, was mainly contributed by Berger, Goffman, Weick, etc. They held the shared belief that organizations were important because they were actually communities interacting with each other. In the last stage â postmodernism, more researchers appeared, such as Harvey, Cooper, and Burrell. During this period, various thoughts on organizations formed and evolved.
A little different from the classification described above, Docherty (2001) classified the development of organizational theory into three big stages: (1) classical theory; (2) neoclassical theory; and (3) contemporary theory. In the first stage, the mass production facilitated the overall formation of organizations and relative theories. Focuses in this stage were the studies of some contents about laborers, labor division, and scientific management â such as hierarchy, span of control, the degree of centralization and the specialization of work. Unlike the first one, in the second stage â neoclassical theory, organizational theory puts its main focus on the individuals and their mutual relationship (or interactions). In the last stage, contemporary theory, various theories appeared and organizational theory stepped into a new era.
1.3Major Theories
Organizational theory is made up of different theories. These theories are summarized as follows (Zhao and Zhang, 2013).
1.3.1Classical organizational theory
Overall, it consists of three sub-theories â scientific management, Weberâs bureaucratic theory, and administrative theory.
| (a) | Scientific management. Frederick W. Taylor is recognized as the pioneer of scientific management. It is thus called Taylorism. He proposed the theory with the observation, analysis, and synthesis of workflows. The focus is how to minimize cost, maximize economic efficiency, and achieve specialization and standardization. However, this theory is criticized for the reason that this system overlooks the humanâs perception and senses. |
| (b) | Weberâs theory of bureaucracy. Max Weberâs theory considered that an organization is governed by top-down rules and regulations. Employees work on strictly defined responsibility and own limited power: Bureaucratic officials need expert training; Rules are implemented by neutral officials; Career advancement depends on technical qualifications judged by the organization, not individuals (See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy#Max_Weber). |
| (c) | Administrative theory. Administrative theory was pioneered mainly by Henri Fayol. It takes the form of hierarchical pyramid as its structure. It was concerned principally with achieving the âmost rationalâ organization for coordinating the various tasks specified within a complex division of labour (See: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O88-administrativetheory.html). Fayol put forward 14 principles to advise managers on how to mandate and fulfill their responsibility. In addition, he outlined five basic elements of management: planning, organizing, command, coordination, and control. |
1.3.2Neoclassical organizational theory
The Neoclassical theory began with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s. Significantly different from the early thoughts and approaches, this theory particularly emphasized âaffective and socio-psychological aspects of human behaviours in organizations.â (See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_theory#Neoclassical_perspective). Personnel relationships among workers, employees, and managers were stressed, reflecting the growing need of humane and emotional care of workers. Laborers with high concentration and volition contribute positively and meticulously, so the company and factory would benefit more and function better. A lot of studies were thus conducted by sociologists and psychologists, among which Elton Mayo contributed the most.
1.3.3Contemporary theories
Dozens of new theories have appeared in modern times. Modern theories evolve quickly into various shapes and structures in rapidly-changing environments. Several major theories or methods are described as follows.
| (a) | The systematic theory. According to this theory, an organization is viewed as a system which composes of many mutually connected components, aiming benefit both internally and externally. Overall an organization consists of three parts: components, linking processes, and goals of organization (Bakke, 1959). |
| (b) | Contingency theory. Contingency theory, proposed by Lawrence and Lorsch, suggests that there is no best way to direct an enterprise, because the requirements for corporations vary enormously in different environments and conditions. A series of factors may work as variables, including environmental uncertainty, technology, size, strategy, resource dependence, and public accountability (Tompkins, 2005). |
| (c) | Other theories. There are some other theories that play a better role in the modern organizational theory, such as quality management theory, organizational culture, leadership theory, and so forth. |
After sharing Sedovâs statement that moving matter has only two characteristics: the intensity of movement and the organization of movement, Aleinikov proposed organizology â the science on organization of movement â following this binary logic (Aleinikov and Smarsh, 2010). It is true that one cannot find any entry about this terminology in Websterâs dictionary and even by searching it on the Internet. Actually, this terminology was crafted by Aleinikov in 2003. Science per se needs to be ordered and organized properly. Moreover, considering the development of science and organization a science of organization should have been founded. But this did not happen until recent years due to the absence of measurement or organization. The proposition of organizology is a beneficial attempt in this aspect. Organizology was founded on one basic measurement to address complex problems with one simple explanation (Aleinikov, 2004). But the defining and refining of this measurement proved to be a challenge and a new unit of organization expressed by the formula T/L (time divided by space) was offered. Also, a few cases were provided to expla...
