The Basic Organization

Tugas Matakuliah Bahasa Inggris 2. (Softskill_ATA 2012-2013)

Kelompok 1

A. Anwar Sadat (11212008)

B. Ihsan Fadhilah (13212563)

C. Ismi Nabicha (13212847)

D. Silva Anggraeni (17212008)

E. Evitera R. Dewi (12212582)

F. Ria (1621239)

F. Putri W. Astuti (15212795)

G. Fitra Amalina (12212997)

H. Nurul A. Putri (15212521)

I. Lidia Liyani (14212193)

Materi Bahasan : The basics of organization
1. Theory of Organizations ( Capt 1-4 )
2. Organizational Culture
3. Organizational Development

Theory Of Organizations - 1

TEORI ORGANISASI
            Manusia adalah mahluk social yang cinderung untuk hidup bermasyarakat serta mengatur dan mengorganisasi kegiatannya dalam mencapai sautu tujuan tetapi karena keterbatasan kemampuan menyebabkan mereka tidak mampu mewujudkan tujuan tanpa adanya kerjasama. Hal tersebut yang mendasari manusia untuk hidup dalam berorganisasi.

            Beberapa definisi tentang Organisasi:
            Menurut ERNEST DALE:
            Organisasi adalah suatu proses perencanaan yang meliputi penyusunan, pengembangan, dan pemeliharaan suatu  struktur atau pola hubunngan kerja dari orang-orang dalam suatu kerja kelompok.

Menurut CYRIL SOFFER:
Organisasi adalah perserikatan orang-orang yang masing-masing diberi peran tertentu dalam suatu system kerja dan pembagian dalam mana pekerjaan itu diperinci menjadi tugas-tugas, dibagikan kemudian digabung lagi dalam beberapa bentuk hasil.

            Menurut KAST & ROSENZWEIG:
Organisasi adalah sub system teknik, sub system structural, sub system pshikososial dan sub system manajerial dari lingkungan yang lebih luas dimana ada kumpulan orang-orang berorenteasi pada tujuan.

            Definisi UMUM:
“Kelompok orang yang secara bersama-sama ingin mencapai tujuan”

            CIRI-CIRI ORGANISASI:
        Lembaga social yang terdiri atas kumpulan orang dengan berbagai pola interaksi yang ditetapkan.
        Dikembangkan untuk mencapai tujuan
        Secara sadar dikoordinasi dan dengan sengaja disusun
        Instrumen social yang mempunyai batasan yang secara relatif dapat diidentifikasi.

1.    TEORI ORGANISASI KLASIK
Teori ini biasa disebut dengan “teori tradisional” atau disebut juga “teori mesin”. Berkembang mulai 1800-an (abad 19).  Dalam teori ini organisasi digambarkan sebuah lembaga yang tersentralisasi dan tugas-tugasnnya terspesialisasi serta memberikan petunjuk mekanistik structural yang kaku tidak mengandung kreatifitas.

Dalam teori ini organisasi digambarkan seperti toet piano dimana masing-masing nada mempunyai spesialisasi (do.. re.. mi.. fa.. so.. la.. si..) dimana apabila tiap nada dirangkai maka akan tercipta lagu yang indah begitu juga dengan organisasi.

Dikatakan teori mesin karena organisasi ini menganggab manusia bagaikan sebuah onderdil yang setiap saat bisa dipasang dan digonta-ganti sesuai kehendak pemimpin.
            Defisi Organisasi menurut Teori Klasik:

Organisasi merupakan struktur hubungan, kekuasaan-kejuasaan, tujuan-tujuan, peranan-peranan, kegiatan-kegiatan, komunikasi dan factor-faktor lain apabila orang bekerja sama.

Teori Organisasi klasik sepenuhnya menguraikan anatomi organisasi formal. Empat unsure pokok yang selalu muncul dalam organisasi formal:
a.       Sistem kegiatan yang terkoordinasi
b.      Kelompok orang
c.       Kerjasama
d.      Kekuasaan & Kepemimpinan
Sedangkan menurut penganut teori klasik suatu organisasi tergantung pada empat kondisi pokok: Kekuasaan) Saling melayani) Doktrin) Disiplin)
Sedangkan yang dijadikan tiang dasar penting dalam organisasi formal adalah:
a.       Pembagian kerja (untuk koordinasi)
b.      Proses Skalar & Fungsional (proses pertumbuhan vertical dan horizontal)
c.       Struktur (hubungan antar kegiatan)
d.      Rentang kendali (berapa banyak atasan bisa mengendalikan bawahan).

            Teori Klasik berkembang dalam 3 Aliran:
•      BIROKRASI) Dikembangkan dari Ilmu Sosiologi
•      ADMINISTRASI) Langsung dari praktek manajemen memusatkan Aspek Makro sebuah organisasi.
•      MANAJEMEN ILMIAH)  Langsung dari praktek manajemen memusatkan Aspek Mikro sebuah organisasi.
Semua teori diatas dikembangkan sekitar tahun 1900-1950. Pelopor teori ini kebanyakan dari sebuah negara berbentuk kerajaan “Mesir, Cina & Romawi”.
 
TEORI BIROKRASI
Dikemukakan oleh “MAX WEBER” dalam buku “The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism” dan “The Theory of Social and Economic Organization”.
Istilah BIROKRASI berasal dari kata LEGAL_RASIONAL:
“Legal” disebakan adanya wewenang dari seperangkat aturan prosedur dan peranan yang dirumuskan secara jelas.  Sedangkan “Rasional”  karena adanya penetapan tujuan yang ingin dicapai.
Karekteristik-karekteristik birokrasi menurut Max Weber:
      Pembagian kerja
      Hirarki wewenang
      Program  rasional
      Sistem Prosedur
      Sistem Aturan hak kewajiban
      Hubungan antar pribadi yang bersifat impersonal

TEORI ADMINISTRASI
Teori ini dikembangkan oleh Henry Fayol, Lyndall Urwick dari Eropa  dan James D. Mooney, Allen Reily dari Amerika.

HENRY FAYOL (1841-1925): Seorang industrialis asal Perancis tahun 1916 menulis sebuah buku “Admistration industrtrielle et Generale” diterjemahkan dalam bahasa inggris 1926 dan baru dipublikasikan di amerika 1940.
14 Kaidah manjemen menurut Fayol yang menjadi dasar teori administrasi:
      Pembagian kerja
      Wewenang & tanggung jawab
      Disiplin
      Kesatuan perintah
      Kesatuan pengarahan
      Mendahulukan kepentingan umum
      Balas jasa
      Sentralisasi
      Rantai Skalar
      Aturan
      Keadilan
      Kelanggengan personalia
      Inisiatif
      Semangat korps

Fayol membagi kegiatan industri menjadi 6 kelompok:
        Kegiatan Teknikal (Produksi, Manufaktur, Adaptasi)
        Kegiatan Komersil (Pembelian, Penjualan, Pertukaran)
        Kegiatan Financial (penggunaan optimum modal)
        Kegiatan Keamanan
        Kegiatan Akuntansi
        Kegiatan Manajerial atau “FAYOL’s FUNCTIONALISM” yaitu:
a.       Perencanaan
b.      Pengorganisasian
c.       Pemberian perintah
d.      Pengkoordinasian
e.       Pengawasan

JAMES D. MOONEY & ALLEN REILLY :1931) Menerbitkan sebuah buku “ONWARD INDUSTRY” inti dari pendapat mereka adalah “koordinasi merupakan factor terpenting dalam perencanaan organisasi”. Tiga prinsip yang harus diterapkan dalam sebuah organisasi menurut mereka adalah:
a.       Prinsip Koordinasi
b.      Prinsip Skalar & Hirarkis
c.       Prinsip Fungsional
MANAJEMEN ILMIAH
Dikembangkan tahun 1900 oleh FREDERICK WINSLOW TAYLOR).  Definisi Manajemen Ilmiah:
“Penerapan metode ilmiah pada studi, analisa dan pemecahan masalah organisasi” atau “Seperangkat mekanisme untuk meningkatkan efesiensi kerja”.

F.W. TAYLOR menuangkan ide dalam tiga makalah: “Shop Management”, “The Principle Oif Scientific Management” dan “Testimony before the Special House Comitte”.  Dari tiga makalah tersebut lahir sebuah buku “Scientific Management”.

Berkat jasa-jasa yang sampai sekarang konsepnya masih dipergunakan pada praktek manajemen modern maka F.W. TAYLOR dijuluki sebagai “BAPAK MANAJEMEN ILMIAH”.

Empat kaidah Manajemen menurut Frederick W. Taylor:
a.       Menggantikan metode kerja dalam praktek dengan metode atas dasar ilmu pengetahuan.
b.      Mengadakan seleksi, latihan dan pengembangan karyawan
c.       Pengembangan ilmu tentang kerja, seleksi, latihan dan pengembangan secara ilmiah perlu intregasikan.
d.      Perlu dikembangkan semangat dan mental karyawan untuk mencapai manfaat manajemen ilmiah.

2.    TEORI NEOKLASIK
Aliran yang berikutnya muncul adalah aliran Neoklasik disebut juga dengan “Teori Hubungan manusiawi”. Teori ini muncul akibat ketidakpuasan dengan teori klasik dan teori merupakan penyempurnaan teori klasik. Teori ini menekankan pada  “pentingnya aspek psikologis dan social karyawan sebagai individu ataupun kelompok kerja”.

HUGO MUNSTERBERG
Salah tokoh neoklasik pencetus “Psikologi Industri”. Hugo menulis sebuah buku “Psychology and Industrial Effeciency” tahun 1913. Buku tersebut merupakan jembatan antara manajemen ilmiah dan neoklasik. Inti dari pandangan Hugo adalah menekankan adanya perbedaan karekteristik individu dalam organisasi dan mengingatkan adannya pengaruh factor social dan budaya terhadap organisasi.

Munculnya teori neoklasik diawali dengan inspirasi percobaan yang dilakukan di Pabrik Howthorne tahun 1924 milik perusahaan Western Elektric di Cicero yang disponsori oleh Lembaga Riset Nasional Amerika. Percobaan yang dilakukan ELTON MAYO seorang riset dari Western Electric menyimpulkan bahwa pentingnya memperhatikan insentif upah dan Kondisi kerja karyawan dipandang sebagai factor penting peningkatan produktifitas.

Dalam pembagian kerja  Neoklasik memandang perlunya:
a.       Partisipasi
b.      Perluasan kerja
c.       Manajemen bottom_up


3.    TEORI MODERN
Teori ini muncul pada tahun 1950 sebagai akibat ketidakpuasan dua teori sebelumnya yaitu klasik dan neoklasik. Teori Modern sering disebut dengan teori “Analiasa Sistem” atau “Teori Terbuka” yang memadukan antara teori klasik dan neokalsi. Teori Organisasi Modern melihat bahwa semua unsure organisasi sebagai satu kesatuan  yang saling bergantung dan tidak bisa dipisahkan. Organisasi bukan system tertutup yang berkaitan dengan lingkungan yang stabil akan tetapi organisasi merupakan system terbuka yang berkaitan dengan lingkunngan dan apabila ingin survivel atau dapat bertahan hidup maka ia harus bisa beradaptasi dengan lingkungan.

TEORI MODERN vs TEORI KLASIK
a.       Teori Klasik memusatkan pandangan pada analisa dan deskripsi organisasi sedangkan Teori Modern menekankan pada perpaduan & perancangan sehingga terlihat lebih menyeluruh.
b.      Teori Klasik membicarakan konsep koordinasi, scalar, dan vertical sedangkan Teori Modern lebih dinamis, sangat komplek, multilevel, multidimensi dan banyak variable yang dipertimbangkan.

Theory of Organizations - 1 ( English )

THEORY OF OGRANIZATIONS
Organizational theory is "the study of organizations for the benefit of identifying common themes for the purpose of solving problems, maximizing efficiency and productivity, and meeting the needs of stakeholders." Organizational theory contains three subtopics: classical perspective, neoclassic perspective and environmental perspective. It complements the studies of organizational behaviorand human resource studies.
Rise of organizations
Organizations, which are defined as “social units of people that are structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals (“Organizations”),” are said to have risen in the United States within a variety of social and historical contexts. Several of those factors are credited with making organizations viable and necessary options for citizens, and they built on one another to bring organizations to the level of importance that they are at today.
In 1820, about 20% of the United States population was dependent on a wage income. That number increased to 90% by 1950. Generally, farmers and craftsmen were the only ones by 1950 who were not dependent on working for someone else; prior to that, most people were able to survive by hunting and farming their own food, making their own supplies, and remaining almost fully self-sufficient. As transportation became more efficient and technologies were further developed, self-sufficiency became an economically poor choice. As in the Lowell Textile Mills, various machines and processes were developed for each step of the production process, thus making mass production a cheaper and faster alternative to individual control. In addition, as the population grew and transportation progressed, the pre-organizational system struggled to support the needs of the market. These conditions made for a wage dependent population that sought out jobs in growing organizations, leading to a shift from individual and family production.
In addition to a shift to wage dependence, externalities from industrialization also created a perfect opportunity for the rise of organizations. Various negative effects such as pollution,workplace accidents, crowded cities, and unemployment became rising concerns. Rather than small groups such as families and churches being able to control these problems as they had in the past, new organizations and systems were required in order to keep their heightened effects down. The smaller associations that had contained various social issues in the past were no longer viable, and instead were collapsed into larger formal organizations. These organizations were less personal, more distant, and more centralized; but, what they lacked in locality, they made up for in efficiency. Along with wage dependency and externalities, growth of industry also played a large role in the development of organizations. Markets that were quickly growing and expanding needed employees right away – because of that, a need developed for organizational structures that would help guide and support these new employees. Some of the first New England factories relied on daughters of farmers at their onset; later, as the economy changed, they began to gain work from the farmers, and finally, European immigrants. Many Europeans left their homes for the promises of US industry, and about 60% of those immigrants stayed in the country. They became a permanent class of workers in the economy, which allowed factories to increase production and produce more than they had before. With this large growth came the need for organizations and leadership that was not previously needed in small businesses and firms.
Overall, the historical and social context in which organizations rose in the United States allowed for not only the development of organizations, but also for their spread and growth. Wage dependency, externalities, and growth of industries all played into the change from individual, family, and small-group production and regulation to large organizations and structure.
Even though the decline in small business might not seem to substantiate how the development in organizations leads to increased aggregate economic return, it exemplifies the cut-throat nature of capitalism. As organizations develop, they devour the smaller organizations that cannot keep up, but also allow for the evolution of innovative management and production techniques for other larger companies. The development of organizations demands a higher level of skillset from workers as it continues to grow. It also builds precautionary measures on cutting edge technology. It amplifies the need for specialization and accounts of functionalism in various organizations and their respective societies. Through much advancement in the interaction of capitalistic bureaucracies, the development of organizations is what has driven contemporary firms to thrive in its modern day society.
Competing theories of organization
As organizations are implemented over time, many people experimented as to which one was best. These theories of organizations include Bureaucracy, Rationalization (Scientific Management), and the Division of Labor. Each theory provides distinct advantages and disadvantages when implemented. However, there is no best way to organize labor. For instance, the division of labor may be more effective for a car company, while a bureaucracy is more effective for a government program such as the FDA.
Weber's Idea of Bureaucracy
•         Official Jurisdiction on all areas are ordered by rules or laws already implemented.
•         There is an office hierarchy; a system of super- and subordination in which there is supervision of lower office by higher ones.
•         The management of the modern office is based upon written rule, which are preserved in original form.
•         Office management requires that of training or specialization.
•         When the office is developed/established it requires the full working capacity of individuals.
•         Rules are stable and can be learned. Knowledge of these rules can be viewed as expertise within the bureaucracy (these allow for the management of society)
When a bureaucracy is implemented, they can provide accountability, responsibility, control, and consistency. The hiring of employees will be an impersonal and equal system.
Although the classical perspective encourages efficiency, it is often criticized as ignoring human needs. Also, it rarely takes into consideration human error or the variability of work performances (each worker is different)
Challenger Tragedy: overlooked the possibility of human error. Three Mile Island Incident
Rational system perspective
In a rational organization system, there are two significant parts: Specificity of Goals and Formalization. Goal specification provides guidelines for specific tasks to be completed along with a regulated way for recourses to be allocated. Formalization is a way to standardize organizational behavior. As a result, there will be stable expectations, which create the rational organizational system.
•         Scientific Management: Taylor analyzed how to maximize the amount of output with the least amount of input. This was Taylor’s attempt to rationalize the individual worker.
1.     Divide work between managers and workers
2.     Provide incentive system (based on performance)
3.     Scientifically train workers
4.     Create a science for each individual’s responsibilities
5.     Make sure work is done on time/efficiently
There are problems that arose out of scientific management. One is that the standardization leads workers to rebel against the mundaneness. Another is that workers may reject the incentive system because they are required to constantly work at their optimum level, an expectation that may be unrealistic.
Division of labor
The division of labor is the specialization of individual labor roles. It is often associated with increasing output and trade. According to Adam Smith, the division of labor is efficient due to three reasons: occupational specialization, saving from not changing tasks, and machines taking the place of human labor. Occupational specialization leads to increased productivity and distinct skill. Also, Smith argued that human and physical capital must be similar or matched; if the skill of workers were matched with technological improvements, there would be a major increase in productivity.
Although the division of labor is often viewed as inevitable in a capitalistic society, there are several specific problems that may arise. They include a lack of creativity, monotony, and lack of mobility. Creativity will naturally suffer due the monotonous atmosphere that the division of labor creates. Doing the same routines may not be for everyone. Also, employees aren’t familiar with other parts of the job. They cannot assist employers of different parts of the system.
Modernization theory
Modernization “began when a nation’s rural population started moving from the countryside to cities” (Shah 3). It deals with the cessation of traditional methods in order to pursue more contemporary effective methods of organization. Urbanization is an inevitable characteristic of society because the formation of industries and factories induces profit maximization. It is fair to assume that along with the increase in population, as a result of the subsequent urbanization, is the demand for an intelligent and educated labor force (Shah 3). Following the 1950s, Western culture utilized the effects of mass media coverage to communicate their good fortune attributed to modernization. The coverage promoted “psychic mobility” among the social class and increased the aspirations of many hopefuls in developing economic countries (Shah 4). Under this theory, any country could modernize by using Western civilization as a template.
Although this theory of modernization seemed to pride itself on only the benefits, countries in the Middle East saw this movement in a new light. Middle Eastern countries believed that the media coverage of modernization implied that the more “traditional” societies have not “risen to a higher level of technological development” (Shah 6). Consequently, they believed a movement that benefits those who have the monetary resources to modernize technological development would discriminate against the minorities and poor masses (Shah 6). Thus, they were reluctant to modernize because of the economic gap it would create between the rich and the poor.
The growth of modernization took place beginning in the 1950s. For the ensuing decade, people analyzed the diffusion of technological innovations within Western society and the communication that helped it disperse globally (“Modernization Theory”). This first “wave” as it became known had some significant ramifications. First, economic development was enhanced from the spread of new technological techniques. And second, modernization supported a more educated society (as mentioned above), and thus a more qualified labor force (“Modernization Theory”). The second wave took place between the years 1960 and 1970. This period was labeled anti-modernization, because it saw the push of innovations of Western society onto developing countries as an exertion of dominance (“Modernization Theory”). It refuted the concept of relying heavily on mass media for the betterment of society. The last wave of modernization theory, which took place in the 1990s, depicts impersonality (Perrow 737). As uses of newspapers, TVs, and radios become more prevalent, the need for direct contact, a concept traditional organizations took pride in, diminishes. Thus, organizational interactions become more distant (“Modernization Theory”).
According to Frank Dobbin, the modern worldview is the idea that “modern institutions are transparently purposive and that we are in the midst an evolutionary progression towards more efficient forms (138).” This phrase epitomizes the goal of modern firms, bureaucracies, and organizations to maximize efficiency. The key to achieving this goal is through scientific discoveries and innovations (Dobbin 139). Dobbin discusses the outdated role of culture in organizations. “New Institutionalists” explored the significance of culture in the modern organization (Dobbin 117). However, the rationalist worldview counters the use of cultural values in organizations, stating, “transcendental economic laws exist, that existing organizational structures must be functional under the parameters of those laws, [and] that the environment will eliminate organizations that adopt non-efficient solutions” (Dobbin 138). These laws govern the modern organizations and lead them in the direction that will maximize profits efficiently. Thus, the modernity of organizations is to generate maximum profit, through the uses of mass media, technological innovations, and social innovations in order to effectively allocate resources for the betterment of the global economy.
Classical perspective
The classical perspective emerges from the Industrial Revolution and centers on theories of efficiency. There are two subtopics under the classical perspective: the scientific management and bureaucracy theory.
Criticism of the classical perspective
Weber’s theories were purposed to set a stage for other organizations to follow, and the characteristics are so ideal that they may be impossible for any actual organization to succeed. He wanted to come up with a set of guidelines that would favor both efficiency and, most importantly, conditions that would make the workers top priority. It was common for earlier theorists to distort Weber’s views, and today, people still make the same mistakes as they did when Weber’s views first came into play. He has always been critiqued for the branches of his ideas that don’t work in reality, but the point of his theory was not to actually create an organization, but to create an ideal model for other organizations to follow.
One big misconception that people have had in the past is a question of Weber’s morality due to their oversimplification of his characteristics of a pure bureaucracy. “There is dangerous risk of oversimplification in making Weber seem cold and heartless to such a degree that an efficiently-run Nazi death camp might appear admirable” (Bureaucracy Theory). In reality, Weber believed that by using human logic in his system, we could achieve improvement of human condition in various workplaces. Complexity in an organization yields the highest success, therefore simplifying it leads to the illusions of over-authority and intense hierarchical power that are inaccurate of Weber’s beliefs.
Another critique of Weber’s theory is the argument of efficiency. Highest efficiency, in theory, can be attained through pure work with no regard for the workers (for example, long hours with little pay), which is why oversimplification can be dangerous. If we were to take one characteristic focusing on efficiency, it would seem like Weber is promoting unhealthy work conditions, when in fact, he wanted the complete opposite. Put all of them together, and we have the ideal organization, but since a pure bureaucracy is nearly impossible to obtain, efficiency takes the back seat in his beliefs. Though his theories include characteristics of a highly efficient organization, we must remember that these characteristics are only meant to set a model for other organizations to follow, and if all the other conditions are not perfect, the organization is not pure. Is it really a bad thing that Weber’s priorities were for the people rather than the company itself?
With this said, the characteristics of Weber’s theory have to all be perfect for a bureaucracy to function at its highest potential. “Think of the concept as a bureau or desk with drawers in it, which seems to call out to you, demanding that everything must fit in its place” (Bureaucracy Theory). If one object in the drawer does not fit properly, the entire drawer becomes untidy, which is exactly the case in Weber’s theory; if one characteristic is not fulfilled the rest of them are unable to work in unison, leaving the organization performing below its full potential.
One characteristic that was meant to better workplace conditions was his rule that “Organization follows hierarchical principle -- subordinates follow orders or superiors, but have right of appeal (in contrast to more diffuse structure in traditional authority)” (Bureaucracy (Weber)). In other words, everyone in a company or any sort of work environment has the opportunity and right to disagree or to speak up if they are unhappy with something rather than not voice their opinion in fear of losing their job. Open communication is a very important part of Weber’s ideal bureaucracy, and is practiced today. Because of the communication it may not be the most efficient, but Weber would argue that improved human conditions are more important than efficiency.
It is hard to critique Weber’s theories strictly because of the fact that they are theories; they are nearly impossible to perform in real life, therefore how can we know if they work or not? They are merely a set of guidelines that make up bureaucracy, which today many believe is the best way to run organizations in all aspects.
Efficiency and teleological arguments in Weberian bureaucracy
Max Weber believed that an ideal bureaucracy consists of six specific characteristics: hierarchy of authority, impersonality, written rules of conduct, promotion based on achievement, specialized division of labor, and efficiency. This ultimate characteristic of Weberian bureaucracy, which states that bureaucracies are very efficient, is controversial and by no means accepted by all sociologists. There are certainly both positive and negative consequences to bureaucracy, and strong arguments for both the efficiency and inefficiency of bureaucracies.
While Max Weber’s work was published in the late 1800s and early 1900s, before his death in 1920, his work is still referenced today in the field of sociology. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy claims that it is extremely efficient, and even goes as far as to claim that bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization. Weber claimed that bureaucracies are necessary to ensure the continued functioning of society, which has become drastically more modern and complex in the past century. Furthermore, he claimed that without the structured organization of bureaucracy, our complex society would be much worse off, due to the fact that society would act in an inefficient and wasteful way. He saw bureaucracies as organizations driven towards certain goals, which they could carry out efficiently. In addition, within an organization that operates under bureaucratic standards, the members will be better off due to the heavy regulation and detailed structure. Not only does bureaucracy make it much more difficult for arbitrary and unfair personal favors to be carried out, it also means that promotions and hiring will generally be done completely by merit.
Weber most definitely saw bureaucracies as goal-driven, efficient organizations, but one must not come to the quick and incorrect conclusion that he saw no downfalls to bureaucracy. He recognized that there are constraints within the bureaucratic system. First of all, he realized that bureaucracies were ruled by very few people with very large amounts of unregulated power. This tends to lead to a situation of oligarchy, whereby a limited number of officials become the political and economic power. Furthermore, Weber considered further bureaucratization to be an “inescapable fate,” due to the fact that it is supposedly superior to and more efficient than other forms of organization. Weber’s analysis of bureaucracies led him to believe that they are too inherently limiting to individual human freedom and he feared that people would begin to be too controlled by bureaucracies. His rationale comes from the knowledge that the strict methods of administration and legitimate forms of authority associated with bureaucracy act to eliminate human freedom.
Regardless of whether or not bureaucracies should be considered positively efficient or too efficient to the extent that they become negative, Weberian bureaucracy tends to offer a teleological argument. A theory, in this case bureaucracy, is considered to be teleological if it involves aiming at specific goals. Weber claimed that bureaucracies are goal-oriented organizations, which use their efficiency and rational principles to reach their goals. A teleological analysis of businesses leads to the inclusion of all involved stakeholders in decision-making. The teleological view of Weberian bureaucracy postulates that all actors in an organization have various ends or goals, and attempt to find the most efficient way to achieve these goals.
Scientific Management
Main article: Scientific management
The Scientific Management theory was introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor to encourage production efficiency and productivity.Taylor argues that inefficiencies could be controlled through managing production as a science. Taylor defines scientific management as "concerned with knowing exactly what you want men to do and then see in that they do it in the best and cheapest way."According to Taylor, scientific management affects both workers and employers, and stresses the control of the labour force by management.
Principles of Scientific Management
Main article: The Principles of Scientific Management
Taylor identifies four inherent principles of the scientific management theory.
1.     The creation of a scientific method of measurement that replaces the "rule-of-thumb" method
2.     Emphasis placed on the training of workers by management
3.     Co-operation between manager and workers to ensure the principles are being met
4.     Equal Division of labour between managers and workers
Bureaucratic Theory
Main article: bureaucracy
The scholar most closely associated with Bureaucratic theory is Max Weber. In Economy and Society, his seminal book published in 1922, Weber articulates the necessary conditions and descriptive features of bureaucracy. An organization governed under Weber’s conception of bureaucracy is characterized by the presence of impersonal positions that are earned and not inherited, rule-governed decision-making, professionalism, chain of command, defined responsibility, and bounded authority.
Weber begins his discussion of bureaucracy by introducing the concept of ‘jurisdictional areas’: institutions governed by a specific set of rules or laws. In a ‘jurisdictional area’ regular activities are assigned as official duties, the authority to assign these duties is distributed through a set of rules, and duties are fulfilled continuously by qualified individuals. These elements make up a bureaucratic agency in the case of the state and a bureaucratic enterprise in the private economy.
There are several additional features that comprise a Weberian bureaucracy:
•         It is possible to find the utilization of hierarchical subordination in all bureaucratic structures. This means that higher-level offices supervise lower level offices.
•         In bureaucracies, personal possessions are kept separate from the monies of the agency or the enterprise.
•         People who work within a bureaucracy are usually trained in the appropriate field of specialization.
•         Bureaucratic officials are expected to contribute their full working capacity to the organization.
•         Positions within a bureaucratic organization must follow a specific set of general rules.
Weber argued that in bureaucracy, taking on a position or office signifies an assumption of a specific duty necessary for the organization. This conception is distinct from historical working relationships in which a worker served a specific ruler, not an institution.
The hierarchical nature of bureaucracies allows employees to demonstrate achieved social status[33] When an office holder is elected instead of appointed, that person is no longer a purely bureaucratic figure. He derives his power ‘from below’ instead of ‘from above.’ When a high-ranking officer selects officials, they are more likely to be chosen for reasons related to the benefit of the superior than the competency of the new hire. When high-skilled employees are necessary for the bureaucracy and public opinion shapes decision-making, competent officers are more likely to be selected.
According to Weber, if ‘tenure for life’ is legally guaranteed, an office becomes perceived as less prestigious than a position that can be replaced at any time. If ‘tenure for life’ or a ‘right to the office’ develops, there is a decrease in career opportunities for ambitious new hires and overall technical efficiency becomes less guaranteed
In a bureaucracy, salaries are provided to officials. The amount is determined on the basis of rank and helps to signify the desirability of a position. Bureaucratic positions also exist as part of stable career tracks that reward office-holders for seniority.
Weber argues that the development of a ‘money economy’ is the “normal precondition for the unchanged survival, if not the establishment, of pure bureaucratic administrations”. Since bureaucracy requires sustained revenues from taxation or private profits in order to be maintained, a money economy is the most rational way to ensure its continued existence.
Weber posits that officials in a bureaucracy have a property right to their office and attempts at exploitation by a superior means the abandonment of bureaucratic principles. He articulates that providing a status incentive to inferior officers helps them to maintain self-respect and fully participate in hierarchical frameworks Michel Crozier reexamined Weber’s theory in 1964. He determined that bureaucracy is flawed because hierarchy causes officers to engage in selfish power struggles that damage the efficiency of the organization.
Neoclassical perspective
The Neoclassical perspective began with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s. This approach gave emphasis to “affective and socio-psychological aspects of human behaviours in organizations.” The human relations movement was a movement which had the primary concerns of concentrating on topics such as morale, leadership, and mainly factors that aid in the cooperation in Organizational behavior.
Hawthorne study
A number of sociologists and psychologists made major contributions to the study of the neoclassical perspective, which is also known as the human relations school of thought. Elton Mayo and his colleagues were the most important contributors to this study because of their famous Hawthorne study from the “Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932.”
The Hawthorne study suggested that employees have social and psychological needs along with economic needs in order to be motivated to complete their assigned tasks. This theory of management was a product of the strong opposition against “the Scientific and universal management process theory of Taylor and Fayol.” This theory was a response to the way employees were treated in companies and how they were deprived of their needs and ambitions.
In November 1924, a team of researcher – professors from the renowned Harvard Business school of USA began investigating into the human aspects of work and working conditions at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company, Chicago. The company was producing bells and other electric equipments for telepohone industry. Prominent Professors included in the research team were Elton Mayo (Psychologist), Roethlisberger and Whilehead (Sociologist), and William Dickson (Company representative). The team conducted four separate experimental and behavioural studies over a seven-year period. These were:
1.     Illumination Experiments (1924–27) to find out the effect of illumination on worker's productivity.
2.     Relay Assembly Test Room experiment (1927–28) to find out the effect of changes in number of work hour and related working condition on worker productivity.
3.     Experiment in interviewing Working : In 1928, a number of researchers went directly to workers, kept the variables of previous experiment aside, and talked about what was, in their opinion, important to them. Around 20,000 workers were interviewed over a period of two years. The interviews enabled the researchers to discover a rich and intriguing world that previously remained undiscovered and unexamined within the Hawthorne studies undertaken so far. The discovery of the informal organisation and its relationship to the formal organisation was the landmark of experiments in interviewing workers. These experiment led to a richer understanding of the social, interpersonal dynamics of people at work.
4.     Bank wiring Room Experiments (1931–32) to find out social system of an organisation.
Results from the Hawthorne studies
The Hawthorne studies helped conclude that “a human/social element operated in the workplace and that productivity increases were as much an outgrowth of group dynamics as of managerial demands and physical factors.” The Hawthorne studies also concluded that although financial motives were important, social factors are just as important in defining the worker-productivity.
Hawthorne Effect was the improvement of productivity between the employees, it was characterized by:
•         The satisfactory interrelationships between the coworkers
•         It classifies personnel as social beings and proposes that sense of belonging in the workplace is important to increase productivity levels in the workforce.
•         An effective management understood the way people interacted and behaved within the group.
•         The management attempts to improve the interpersonal skills through motivations, leading, communication and counseling.
•         This study encourages managers to acquire minimal knowledge of behavioral sciences to be able to understand and improve the interactions between employees
Criticism of the Hawthorne study
Critics believed that Mayo gave a lot of importance to the social side of the study rather than addressing the needs of an organization. Also, they believed that the study takes advantage of employees because it influences their emotions by making it seem as if they are satisfied and content, however it is merely a tool that is being used to further advance the productivity of the organization.
Environmental Perspective
Contingency Theory
Main article: Contingency theory
The Contingency Theory is a class of the behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. An organizational, leadership, or decision making style that is effective in some situations, may not be successful in other situations. The optimal organization, leadership, or decision making style depends upon various internal and external constraints (factors).
Contingency Theory factors
Some examples of such constraints (factors) include:
•         The size of the organization
•         How the firm adapts itself to its environment
•         Differences among resources and operations activities
1. Cy on the Organization
In the Contingency Theory on the Organization, it states that there is no universal or one best way to manage an organization. Secondly, the organizational design and its subsystems must "fit" with the environment and lastly, effective organizations must not only have a proper "fit" with the environment, but also between its subsystems.
2. Contingency Theory of Leadership
In the Contingency Theory of Leadership, the success of the leader is a function of various factors in the form of subordinate, task, and/ or group variables. The following theories stress using different styles of leadership appropriate to the needs created by different organizational situations. Some of these theories are:
•         The Contingency theory: The contingency model theory, developed by Fred Fiedler, explains that group performance is a result of interaction between the style of the leader and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader works.
•         The Hersey–Blanchard situational theory: This theory is an extension of Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid and Reddin's 3-D Management style theory. This model expanded the notion of relationship and task dimensions to leadership, and readiness dimension.
3. Contingency Theory of Decision-Making
The effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the situation:
•         The importance of the decision quality and acceptance.
•         The amount of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates.
•         The amount of disagreement among subordinates with respect to their alternatives.
Criticism of the Contingency theory
It has been argued that the contingency theory implies that a leader switch is the only method to correct any problems facing leadership styles in certain organizational structures. In addition, the contingency model itself has been questioned in its credibility.
source : http://www.en-wikipedia.org

Theory of Organizations - 2

ORGANIZATION
An organization (or organisation – see spelling differences) is a social entity that has a collective goal and is linked to an external environment. The word is derived from the Greek word organon, itself derived from the better-known word ergon which means "organ" – a compartment for a particular task.
There are a variety of legal types of organizations, including corporations, governments,non-governmental organizations, international organizations, armed forces, charities, not-for-profit corporations, partnerships, cooperatives, and universities. A hybrid organizationis a body that operates in both the public sector and the private sector simultaneously, fulfilling public duties and developing commercial market activities.
In the social sciences, organizations are the object of analysis for a number of disciplines, such as sociology, economics, political science, psychology,management, and organizational communication. The broader analysis of organizations is commonly referred to as organizational structure, organizational studies,organizational behavior, or organization analysis. A number of different perspectives exist, some of which are compatible:
•         From a process-related perspective, an organization is viewed as an entity is being (re-)organized, and the focus is on the organization as a set of tasks or actions.
•         From a functional perspective, the focus is on how entities like businesses or state authorities are used.
•         From an institutional perspective, an organization is viewed as a purposeful structure within a social context.
Sociology can be defined as the science of the institutions of modernity; specific institutions serve a function, akin to the individual organs of a coherent body. In the social and political sciences in general, an "organization" may be more loosely understood as the planned, coordinated and purposeful action of human beings working through collective action to reach a common goal or construct a tangible product. This action is usually framed by formal membership and form (institutional rules). Sociology distinguishes the term organization into planned formal and unplanned informal (i.e. spontaneously formed) organizations. Sociology analyzes organizations in the first line from an institutional perspective. In this sense, organization is a permanent arrangement of elements. These elements and their actions are determined by rules so that a certain task can be fulfilled through a system of coordinated division of labor.
Economic approaches to organizations also take the division of labor as a starting point. The division of labor allows for (economies of)specialization. Increasing specialization necessitates coordination. From an economic point of view, markets and organizations are alternative coordination mechanisms for the execution of transactions.
An organization is defined by the elements that are part of it (who belongs to the organization and who does not?), its communication (which elements communicate and how do they communicate?), its autonomy (which changes are executed autonomously by the organization or its elements?), and its rules of action compared to outside events (what causes an organization to act as a collective actor?).
By coordinated and planned cooperation of the elements, the organization is able to solve tasks that lie beyond the abilities of the single elements. The price paid by the elements is the limitation of the degrees of freedom of the elements. Advantages of organizations are enhancement (more of the same), addition (combination of different features) and extension. Disadvantages can be inertness (through co-ordination) and loss of interaction.
Organizational structures
Main article: Organizational structure
The study of organizations includes a focus on optimizing organizational structure. According to management science, most humanorganizations fall roughly into four types:
•         Pyramids or hierarchies
•         Committees or juries
•         Matrix organizations
•         Ecologies
A hierarchy exemplifies an arrangement with a leader who leads other individual members of the organization. This arrangement is often associated with bureaucracy.
These structures are formed on the basis that there are enough people under the leader to give him support. Just as one would imagine a real pyramid, if there are not enough stone blocks to hold up the higher ones, gravity would irrevocably bring down the monumental structure. So one can imagine that if the leader does not have the support of his subordinates, the entire structure will collapse. Hierarchies were satirized in The Peter Principle (1969), a book that introduced hierarchiology and the saying that "in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."
Committees or juries
These consist of a group of peers who decide as a group, perhaps by voting. The difference between a jury and a committee is that the members of the committee are usually assigned to perform or lead further actions after the group comes to a decision, whereas members of a jury come to a decision. In common law countries, legal juries render decisions of guilt, liability and quantify damages; juries are also used in athletic contests, book awards and similar activities. Sometimes a selection committee functions like a jury. In the Middle Ages, juries in continental Europe were used to determine the law according to consensus amongst local notables.
Committees are often the most reliable way to make decisions. Condorcet's jury theorem proved that if the average member votes better than a roll of dice, then adding more members increases the number of majorities that can come to a correct vote (however correctness is defined). The problem is that if the average member is subsequently worse than a roll of dice, the committee's decisions grow worse, not better: Staffing is crucial.
Parliamentary procedure, such as Robert's Rules of Order, helps prevent committees from engaging in lengthy discussions without reaching decisions.
Matrix organization
See also: matrix management
This organizational type assigns each worker two bosses in two different hierarchies. One hierarchy is "functional" and assures that each type of expert in the organization is well-trained, and measured by a boss who is super-expert in the same field. The other direction is "executive" and tries to get projects completed using the experts. Projects might be organized by products, regions, customer types, or some other schema.
As an example, a company might have an individual with overall responsibility for Products X and Y, and another individual with overall responsibility for Engineering, Quality Control etc. Therefore, subordinates responsible for quality control of project X will have two reporting lines.
Ecologies
This organization has intense competition. Bad parts of the organization starve. Good ones get more work. Everybody is paid for what they actually do, and runs a tiny business that has to show a profit, or they are fired.
Companies who utilize this organization type reflect a rather one-sided view of what goes on in ecology. It is also the case that a naturalecosystem has a natural border - ecoregions do not in general compete with one another in any way, but are very autonomous.
The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline talks about functioning as this type of organization in this external article from The Guardian. By:Bastian Batac De Leon
Organization theories
Among the theories that are or have been most influential are:
•         Enterprise architecture, is the conceptual model that defines the coalescence of organizational structure and organizational behavior.
•         Actor-Network Theory
•         Agency theory (sometimes called principal - agent theory)
•         Contingency theory
•         Complexity theory and organizations
•         Critical management studies
•         Economic sociology
•         Garbage Can Model
•         Scientific management (mainly following Frederick W. Taylor)
•         Social entrepreneurship
•         Transaction cost economics
•         Weberian organization theory (refer to Max Weber's chapter on Bureaucracy in his book 'Economy and Society')
Leadership in organizations
Main article: Leadership
A leader in a formal, hierarchical organization, who is appointed to a managerial position, has the right to command and enforce obedience by virtue of the authority of his position. However, he must possess adequate personal attributes to match his authority, because authority is only potentially available to him. In the absence of sufficient personal competence, a manager may be confronted by an emergent leader who can challenge his role in the organization and reduce it to that of a figurehead. However, only authority of position has the backing of formal sanctions. It follows that whoever wields personal influence and power can legitimize this only by gaining a formal position in the hierarchy, with commensurate authority.
Leadership in formal organizations
An organization that is established as a means for achieving defined objectives has been referred to as a formal organization. Its design specifies how goals are subdivided and reflected in subdivisions of the organization. Divisions, departments, sections, positions,jobs, and tasks make up this work structure. Thus, the formal organization is expected to behave impersonally in regard to relationships with clients or with its members. According to Weber's definition, entry and subsequent advancement is by merit or seniority. Each employee receives a salary and enjoys a degree of tenure that safeguards him from the arbitrary influence of superiors or of powerful clients. The higher his position in the hierarchy, the greater his presumed expertise in adjudicating problems that may arise in the course of the work carried out at lower levels of the organization. It is this bureaucratic structure that forms the basis for the appointment of heads or chiefs of administrative subdivisions in the organization and endows them with the authority attached to their position.
Leadership in informal organizations
In contrast to the appointed head or chief of an administrative unit, a leader emerges within the context of the informal organizationthat underlies the formal structure. The informal organization expresses the personal objectives and goals of the individual membership. Their objectives and goals may or may not coincide with those of the formal organization. The informal organization represents an extension of the social structures that generally characterize human life – the spontaneous emergence of groups and organizations as ends in themselves.
In prehistoric times, man was preoccupied with his personal security, maintenance, protection, and survival. Now man spends a major portion of his waking hours working for organizations. His need to identify with a community that provides security, protection, maintenance, and a feeling of belonging continues unchanged from prehistoric times. This need is met by the informal organization and its emergent, or unofficial, leaders.
Leaders emerge from within the structure of the informal organization. Their personal qualities, the demands of the situation, or a combination of these and other factors attract followers who accept their leadership within one or several overlay structures. Instead of the authority of position held by an appointed head or chief, the emergent leader wields influence or power. Influence is the ability of a person to gain cooperation from others by means of persuasion or control over rewards. Power is a stronger form of influence because it reflects a person's ability to enforce action through the control of a means of punishment.
source : http://www.en-wikipedia.org

Theory of Organizations - 3

THEORY OF OGRANIZATIONS
Organizational theory is "the study of organizations for the benefit of identifying common themes for the purpose of solving problems, maximizing efficiency and productivity, and meeting the needs of stakeholders." Organizational theory contains three subtopics: classical perspective, neoclassic perspective and environmental perspective. It complements the studies of organizational behaviorand human resource studies.
Rise of organizations
Organizations, which are defined as “social units of people that are structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue collective goals (“Organizations”),” are said to have risen in the United States within a variety of social and historical contexts. Several of those factors are credited with making organizations viable and necessary options for citizens, and they built on one another to bring organizations to the level of importance that they are at today.
In 1820, about 20% of the United States population was dependent on a wage income. That number increased to 90% by 1950. Generally, farmers and craftsmen were the only ones by 1950 who were not dependent on working for someone else; prior to that, most people were able to survive by hunting and farming their own food, making their own supplies, and remaining almost fully self-sufficient. As transportation became more efficient and technologies were further developed, self-sufficiency became an economically poor choice. As in the Lowell Textile Mills, various machines and processes were developed for each step of the production process, thus making mass production a cheaper and faster alternative to individual control. In addition, as the population grew and transportation progressed, the pre-organizational system struggled to support the needs of the market. These conditions made for a wage dependent population that sought out jobs in growing organizations, leading to a shift from individual and family production.
In addition to a shift to wage dependence, externalities from industrialization also created a perfect opportunity for the rise of organizations. Various negative effects such as pollution,workplace accidents, crowded cities, and unemployment became rising concerns. Rather than small groups such as families and churches being able to control these problems as they had in the past, new organizations and systems were required in order to keep their heightened effects down. The smaller associations that had contained various social issues in the past were no longer viable, and instead were collapsed into larger formal organizations. These organizations were less personal, more distant, and more centralized; but, what they lacked in locality, they made up for in efficiency. Along with wage dependency and externalities, growth of industry also played a large role in the development of organizations. Markets that were quickly growing and expanding needed employees right away – because of that, a need developed for organizational structures that would help guide and support these new employees. Some of the first New England factories relied on daughters of farmers at their onset; later, as the economy changed, they began to gain work from the farmers, and finally, European immigrants. Many Europeans left their homes for the promises of US industry, and about 60% of those immigrants stayed in the country. They became a permanent class of workers in the economy, which allowed factories to increase production and produce more than they had before. With this large growth came the need for organizations and leadership that was not previously needed in small businesses and firms.
Overall, the hist
orical and social context in which organizations rose in the United States allowed for not only the development of organizations, but also for their spread and growth. Wage dependency, externalities, and growth of industries all played into the change from individual, family, and small-group production and regulation to large organizations and structure.
Even though the decline in small business might not seem to substantiate how the development in organizations leads to increased aggregate economic return, it exemplifies the cut-throat nature of capitalism. As organizations develop, they devour the smaller organizations that cannot keep up, but also allow for the evolution of innovative management and production techniques for other larger companies. The development of organizations demands a higher level of skillset from workers as it continues to grow. It also builds precautionary measures on cutting edge technology. It amplifies the need for specialization and accounts of functionalism in various organizations and their respective societies. Through much advancement in the interaction of capitalistic bureaucracies, the development of organizations is what has driven contemporary firms to thrive in its modern day society.
Competing theories of organization
As organizations are implemented over time, many people experimented as to which one was best. These theories of organizations include Bureaucracy, Rationalization (Scientific Management), and the Division of Labor. Each theory provides distinct advantages and disadvantages when implemented. However, there is no best way to organize labor. For instance, the division of labor may be more effective for a car company, while a bureaucracy is more effective for a government program such as the FDA.
Weber's Idea of Bureaucracy
•         Official Jurisdiction on all areas are ord
ered by rules or laws already implemented.
•         There is an office hierarchy; a system of super- and subordination in which there is supervision of lower office by higher ones.
•         The management of the modern office is based upon written rule, which are preserved in original form.
•         Office management requires that of training or specialization.
•         When the office is developed/established it requires the full working capacity of individuals.
•         Rules are stable and can be learned. Knowledge of these rules can be viewed as expertise within the bureaucracy (these allow for the management of society)
When a bureaucracy is implemented, they can provide accountability, responsibility, control, and consistency. The hiring of employees will be an impersonal and equal system.
Although the classical perspect
ive encourages efficiency, it is often criticized as ignoring human needs. Also, it rarely takes into consideration human error or the variability of work performances (each worker is different)
Challenger Tragedy: overlooked the possibility of human error. Three Mile Island Incident
Rational system perspective
In a rational organization system, there are two significant parts: Specificity of Goals and Formalization. Goal specification provides guidelines for specific tasks to be completed along with a regulated way for recourses to be allocated. Formalization is a way to standardize organizational behavior. As a result, there will be stable expectations, which create the rational organizational system.
•         Scientific Management: Taylor analyzed how to maximize the amount of output with the
least amount of input. This was Taylor’s attempt to rationalize the individual worker.
1.     Divide work between managers and workers
2.     Provide incentive system (based on performance)
3.     Scientifically train workers
4.     Create a science for each individual’s responsibilities
5.     Make sure work is done on time/efficiently
There are problems that arose out of scientific management. One is that the standardization leads workers to rebel against the mundaneness. Another is that workers may reject the incentive system because they are required to constantly work at their optimum level, an expectation that may be unrealistic.
Division of labor
The division of labor is the specialization of individual labor roles. It is often associated with increasing output and trade. According to Adam Smith, the division of labor is efficient due to three reasons: occupational specialization, saving from not changing tasks, and machines taking the place of human labor. Occupational specialization leads to increased productivity and distinct skill. Also, Smith argued that human and physical capital must be similar or matched; if the skill of workers were matched with technological improvements, there would be a major increase in productivity.
Although the division of labor is often viewed as inevitable in a capitalistic society, there are several specific problems that may arise. They include a lack of creativity, monotony, and lack of mobility. Creativity will naturally suffer due the monotonous atmosphere that the division of labor creates. Doing the same routines may not be for everyone. Also, employees aren’t familiar with other parts of the job. They cannot assist employers of different parts of the system.
Modernization theory
Modernization “began when a nation’s rural population started moving from the countryside to cities” (Shah 3). It deals with the cessation of traditional methods in order to pursue more contemporary effective methods of organization. Urbanization is an inevitable characteristic of society because the formation of industries and factories induces profit maximization. It is fair to assume that along with the increase in population, as a result of the subsequent urbanization, is the demand for an intelligent and educated labor force (Shah 3). Following the 1950s, Western culture utilized the effects of mass media coverage to communicate their good fortune attributed to modernization. The coverage promoted “psychic mobility” among the social class and increased the aspirations of many hopefuls in developing economic countries (Shah 4). Under this theory, any country could modernize by using Western civilization as a template.
Although this theory of modernization seemed to pride itself on only the benefits, countries in the Middle East saw this movement in a new light. Middle Eastern countries believed that the media coverage of modernization implied that the more “traditional” societies have not “risen to a higher level of  technological development” (Shah 6). Consequently, they believed a movement that benefits those who have the monetary resources to modernize technological development would discriminate against the minorities and poor masses (Shah 6). Thus, they were reluctant to modernize because of the economic gap it would create between the rich and the poor.
The growth of modernization took place beginning in the 1950s. For the ensuing decade, people analyzed the diffusion of technological innovations within Western society and the communication that helped it disperse globally (“Modernization Theory”). This first “wave” as it became known had some significant ramifications. First, economic development was enhanced from the spread of new technological techniques. And second, modernization supported a more educated society (as mentioned above), and thus a more qualified labor force (“Modernization Theory”). The second wave took place between the years 1960 and 1970. This period was labeled anti-modernization, because it saw the push of innovations of Western society onto developing countries as an exertion of dominance (“Modernization Theory”). It refuted the concept of relying heavily on mass media for the betterment of society. The last wave of modernization theory, which took place in the 1990s, depicts impersonality (Perrow 737). As uses of newspapers, TVs, and radios become more prevalent, the need for direct contact, a concept traditional organizations took pride in, diminishes. Thus, organizational interactions become more distant (“Modernization Theory”).
According to Frank Dobbin, the modern worldview is the idea that “modern institutions are transparently purposive and that we are in the midst an evolutionary progression towards more efficient forms (138).” This phrase epitomizes the goal of modern firms, bureaucracies, and organizations to maximize efficiency. The key to achieving this goal is through scientific discoveries and innovations (Dobbin 139). Dobbin discusses the outdated role of culture in organizations. “New Institutionalists” explored the significance of culture in the modern organization (Dobbin 117). However, the rationalist worldview counters the use of cultural values in organizations, stating, “transcendental economic laws exist, that existing organizational structures must be functional under the parameters of those laws, [and] that the environment will eliminate organizations that adopt non-efficient solutions” (Dobbin 138). These laws govern the modern organizations and lead them in the direction that will maximize profits efficiently. Thus, the modernity of organizations is to generate maximum profit, through the uses of mass media, technological innovations, and social innovations in order to effectively allocate resources for the betterment of the global economy.
Classical perspective
The classical perspective emerges from the Industrial Revolution and centers on theories of efficiency. There are two subtopics under the classical perspective: the scientific management and bureaucracy theory.
Criticism of the classical perspective
Weber’s theories were purposed to set a stage for other organizations to follow, and the characteristics are so ideal that they may be impossible for any actual organization to succeed. He wanted to come up with a set of guidelines that would favor both efficiency and, most importantly, conditions that would make the workers top priority. It was common for earlier theorists to distort Weber’s views, and today, people still make the same mistakes as they did when Weber’s views first came into play. He has always been critiqued for the branches of his ideas that don’t work in reality, but the point of his theory was not to actually create an organization, but to create an ideal model for other organizations to follow.
One big misconception that people have had in the past is a question of Weber’s morality due to their oversimplification of his characteristics of a pure bureaucracy. “There is dangerous risk of oversimplification in making Weber seem cold and heartless to such a degree that an efficiently-run Nazi death camp might appear admirable” (Bureaucracy Theory). In reality, Weber believed that by using human logic in his system, we could achieve improvement of human condition in various workplaces. Complexity in an organization yields the highest success, therefore simplifying it leads to the illusions of over-authority and intense hierarchical power that are inaccurate of Weber’s beliefs.
Another critique of Weber’s theory is the argument of efficiency. Highest efficiency, in theory, can be attained through pure work with no regard for the workers (for example, long hours with little pay), which is why oversimplification can be dangerous. If we were to take one characteristic focusing on efficiency, it would seem like Weber is promoting unhealthy work conditions, when in fact, he wanted the complete opposite. Put all of them together, and we have the ideal organization, but since a pure bureaucracy is nearly impossible to obtain, efficiency takes the back seat in his beliefs. Though his theories include characteristics of a highly efficient organization, we must remember that these characteristics are only meant to set a model for other organizations to follow, and if all the other conditions are not perfect, the organization is not pure. Is it really a bad thing that Weber’s priorities were for the people rather than the company itself?
With this said, the characteristics of Weber’s theory have to all be perfect for a bureaucracy to function at its highest potential. “Think of the concept as a bureau or desk with drawers in it, which seems to call out to you, demanding that everything must fit in its place” (Bureaucracy Theory). If one object in the drawer does not fit properly, the entire drawer becomes untidy, which is exactly the case in Weber’s theory; if one characteristic is not fulfilled the rest of them are unable to work in unison, leaving the organization performing below its full potential.
One characteristic that was meant to better workplace conditions was his rule that “Organization follows hierarchical principle -- subordinates follow orders or superiors, but have right of appeal (in contrast to more diffuse structure in traditional authority)” (Bureaucracy (Weber)). In other words, everyone in a company or any sort of work environment has the opportunity and right to disagree or to speak up if they are unhappy with something rather than not voice their opinion in fear of losing their job. Open communication is a very important part of Weber’s ideal bureaucracy, and is practiced today. Because of the communication it may not be the most efficient, but Weber would argue that improved human conditions are more important than efficiency.
It is hard to critique Weber’s theories strictly because of the fact that they are theories; they are nearly impossible to perform in real life, therefore how can we know if they work or not? They are merely a set of guidelines that make up bureaucracy, which today many believe is the best way to run organizations in all aspects.
Efficiency and teleological arguments in Weberian bureaucracy
Max Weber believed that an ideal bureaucracy consists of six specific characteristics: hierarchy of authority, impersonality, written rules of conduct, promotion based on achievement, specialized division of labor, and efficiency. This ultimate characteristic of Weberian bureaucracy, which states that bureaucracies are very efficient, is controversial and by no means accepted by all sociologists. There are certainly both positive and negative consequences to bureaucracy, and strong arguments for both the efficiency and inefficiency of bureaucracies.
While Max Weber’s work was published in the late 1800s and early 1900s, before his death in 1920, his work is still referenced today in the field of sociology. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy claims that it is extremely efficient, and even goes as far as to claim that bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization. Weber claimed that bureaucracies are necessary to ensure the continued functioning of society, which has become drastically more modern and complex in the past century. Furthermore, he claimed that without the structured organization of bureaucracy, our complex society would be much worse off, due to the fact that society would act in an inefficient and wasteful way. He saw bureaucracies as organizations driven towards certain goals, which they could carry out efficiently. In addition, within an organization that operates under bureaucratic standards, the members will be better off due to the heavy regulation and detailed structure. Not only does bureaucracy make it much more difficult for arbitrary and unfair personal favors to be carried out, it also means that promotions and hiring will generally be done completely by merit.
Weber most definitely saw bureaucracies as goal-driven, efficient organizations, but one must not come to the quick and incorrect conclusion that he saw no downfalls to bureaucracy. He recognized that there are constraints within the bureaucratic system. First of all, he realized that bureaucracies were ruled by very few people with very large amounts of unregulated power. This tends to lead to a situation of oligarchy, whereby a limited number of officials become the political and economic power. Furthermore, Weber considered further bureaucratization to be an “inescapable fate,” due to the fact that it is supposedly superior to and more efficient than other forms of organization. Weber’s analysis of bureaucracies led him to believe that they are too inherently limiting to individual human freedom and he feared that people would begin to be too controlled by bureaucracies. His rationale comes from the knowledge that the strict methods of administration and legitimate forms of authority associated with bureaucracy act to eliminate human freedom.
Regardless of whether or not bureaucracies should be considered positively efficient or too efficient to the extent that they become negative, Weberian bureaucracy tends to offer a teleological argument. A theory, in this case bureaucracy, is considered to be teleological if it involves aiming at specific goals. Weber claimed that bureaucracies are goal-oriented organizations, which use their efficiency and rational principles to reach their goals. A teleological analysis of businesses leads to the inclusion of all involved stakeholders in decision-making. The teleological view of Weberian bureaucracy postulates that all actors in an organization have various ends or goals, and attempt to find the most efficient way to achieve these goals.
Scientific Management
Main article: Scientific management
The Scientific Management theory was introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor to encourage production efficiency and productivity.[30]Taylor argues that inefficiencies could be controlled through managing production as a science. Taylor defines scientific management as "concerned with knowing exactly what you want men to do and then see in that they do it in the best and cheapest way." According to Taylor, scientific management affects both workers and employers, and stresses the control of the labour force by management.
Principles of Scientific Management
Main article: The Principles of Scientific Management
Taylor identifies four inherent principles of the scientific management theory.
1.     The creation of a scientific method of measurement that replaces the "rule-of-thumb" method
2.     Emphasis placed on the training of workers by management
3.     Co-operation between manager and workers to ensure the principles are being met
4.     Equal Division of labour between managers and workers
Bureaucratic Theory
Main article: bureaucracy
The scholar most closely associated with Bureaucratic theory is Max Weber. In Economy and Society, his seminal book published in 1922, Weber articulates the necessary conditions and descriptive features of bureaucracy. An organization governed under Weber’s conception of bureaucracy is characterized by the presence of impersonal positions that are earned and not inherited, rule-governed decision-making, professionalism, chain of command, defined responsibility, and bounded authority.
Weber begins his discussion of bureaucracy by introducing the concept of ‘jurisdictional areas’: institutions governed by a specific set of rules or laws. In a ‘jurisdictional area’ regular activities are assigned as official duties, the authority to assign these duties is distributed through a set of rules, and duties are fulfilled continuously by qualified individuals. These elements make up a bureaucratic agency in the case of the state and a bureaucratic enterprise in the private economy.
There are several additional features that comprise a Weberian bureaucracy:
•         It is possible to find the utilization of hierarchical subordination in all bureaucratic structures. This means that higher-level offices supervise lower level offices.
•         In bureaucracies, personal possessions are kept separate from the monies of the agency or the enterprise.
•         People who work within a bureaucracy are usually trained in the appropriate field of specialization.
•         Bureaucratic officials are expected to contribute their full working capacity to the organization.
•         Positions within a bureaucratic organization must follow a specific set of general rules.
Weber argued that in bureaucracy, taking on a position or office signifies an assumption of a specific duty necessary for the organization. This conception is distinct from historical working relationships in which a worker served a specific ruler, not an institution.
The hierarchical nature of bureaucracies allows employees to demonstrate achieved social status When an office holder is elected instead of appointed, that person is no longer a purely bureaucratic figure. He derives his power ‘from below’ instead of ‘from above.’ When a high-ranking officer selects officials, they are more likely to be chosen for reasons related to the benefit of the superior than the competency of the new hire. When high-skilled employees are necessary for the bureaucracy and public opinion shapes decision-making, competent officers are more likely to be selected.
According to Weber, if ‘tenure for life’ is legally guaranteed, an office becomes perceived as less prestigious than a position that can be replaced at any time. If ‘tenure for life’ or a ‘right to the office’ develops, there is a decrease in career opportunities for ambitious new hires and overall technical efficiency becomes less guaranteed
In a bureaucracy, salaries are provided to officials. The amount is determined on the basis of rank and helps to signify the desirability of a position. Bureaucratic positions also exist as part of stable career tracks that reward office-holders for seniority.
Weber argues that the development of a ‘money economy’ is the “normal precondition for the unchanged survival, if not the establishment, of pure bureaucratic administrations”. Since bureaucracy requires sustained revenues from taxation or private profits in order to be maintained, a money economy is the most rational way to ensure its continued existence.
Weber posits that officials in a bureaucracy have a property right to their office and attempts at exploitation by a superior means the abandonment of bureaucratic principles. He articulates that providing a status incentive to inferior officers helps them to maintain self-respect and fully participate in hierarchical frameworks Michel Crozier reexamined Weber’s theory in 1964. He determined that bureaucracy is flawed because hierarchy causes officers to engage in selfish power struggles that damage the efficiency of the organization.
Neoclassical perspective
The Neoclassical perspective began with the Hawthorne studies in the 1920s. This approach gave emphasis to “affective and socio-psychological aspects of human behaviours in organizations.” The human relations movement was a movement which had the primary concerns of concentrating on topics such as morale, leadership, and mainly factors that aid in the cooperation in Organizational behavior.
Hawthorne study
A number of sociologists and psychologists made major contributions to the study of the neoclassical perspective, which is also known as the human relations school of thought. Elton Mayo and his colleagues were the most important contributors to this study because of their famous Hawthorne study from the “Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932.”
The Hawthorne study suggested that employees have social and psychological needs along with economic needs in order to be motivated to complete their assigned tasks. This theory of management was a product of the strong opposition against “the Scientific and universal management process theory of Taylor and Fayol.” This theory was a response to the way employees were treated in companies and how they were deprived of their needs and ambitions.
In November 1924, a team of researcher – professors from the renowned Harvard Business school of USA began investigating into the human aspects of work and working conditions at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric Company, Chicago. The company was producing bells and other electric equipments for telepohone industry. Prominent Professors included in the research team were Elton Mayo (Psychologist), Roethlisberger and Whilehead (Sociologist), and William Dickson (Company representative). The team conducted four separate experimental and behavioural studies over a seven-year period. These were:
1.     Illumination Experiments (1924–27) to find out the effect of illumination on worker's productivity.
2.     Relay Assembly Test Room experiment (1927–28) to find out the effect of changes in number of work hour and related working condition on worker productivity.
3.     Experiment in interviewing Working : In 1928, a number of researchers went directly to workers, kept the variables of previous experiment aside, and talked about what was, in their opinion, important to them. Around 20,000 workers were interviewed over a period of two years. The interviews enabled the researchers to discover a rich and intriguing world that previously remained undiscovered and unexamined within the Hawthorne studies undertaken so far. The discovery of the informal organisation and its relationship to the formal organisation was the landmark of experiments in interviewing workers. These experiment led to a richer understanding of the social, interpersonal dynamics of people at work.
4.     Bank wiring Room Experiments (1931–32) to find out social system of an organisation.
Results from the Hawthorne studies
The Hawthorne studies helped conclude that “a human/social element operated in the workplace and that productivity increases were as much an outgrowth of group dynamics as of managerial demands and physical factors.” The Hawthorne studies also concluded that although financial motives were important, social factors are just as important in defining the worker-productivity.
Hawthorne Effect was the improvement of productivity between the employees, it was characterized by:
•         The satisfactory interrelationships between the coworkers
•         It classifies personnel as social beings and proposes that sense of belonging in the workplace is important to increase productivity levels in the workforce.
•         An effective management understood the way people interacted and behaved within the group.
•         The management attempts to improve the interpersonal skills through motivations, leading, communication and counseling.
•         This study encourages managers to acquire minimal knowledge of behavioral sciences to be able to understand and improve the interactions between employees
Criticism of the Hawthorne study
Critics believed that Mayo gave a lot of importance to the social side of the study rather than addressing the needs of an organization. Also, they believed that the study takes advantage of employees because it influences their emotions by making it seem as if they are satisfied and content, however it is merely a tool that is being used to further advance the productivity of the organization.
Environmental Perspective
Contingency Theory
Main article: Contingency theory
The Contingency Theory is a class of the behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. An organizational, leadership, or decision making style that is effective in some situations, may not be successful in other situations. The optimal organization, leadership, or decision making style depends upon various internal and external constraints (factors).
Contingency Theory factors
Some examples of such constraints (factors) include:
•         The size of the organization
•         How the firm adapts itself to its environment
•         Differences among resources and operations activities
1. Cy on the Organization
In the Contingency Theory on the Organization, it states that there is no universal or one best way to manage an organization. Secondly, the organizational design and its subsystems must "fit" with the environment and lastly, effective organizations must not only have a proper "fit" with the environment, but also between its subsystems.
2. Contingency Theory of Leadership
In the Contingency Theory of Leadership, the success of the leader is a function of various factors in the form of subordinate, task, and/ or group variables. The following theories stress using different styles of leadership appropriate to the needs created by different organizational situations. Some of these theories are:
•         The Contingency theory: The contingency model theory, developed by Fred Fiedler, explains that group performance is a result of interaction between the style of the leader and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader works.
•         The Hersey–Blanchard situational theory: This theory is an extension of Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid and Reddin's 3-D Management style theory. This model expanded the notion of relationship and task dimensions to leadership, and readiness dimension.
3. Contingency Theory of Decision-Making
The effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the situation:
•         The importance of the decision quality and acceptance.
•         The amount of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates.
•         The amount of disagreement among subordinates with respect to their alternatives.
Criticism of the Contingency theory
It has been argued that the contingency theory implies that a leader switch is the only method to correct any problems facing leadership styles in certain organizational structures. In addition, the contingency model itself has been questioned in its credibility.
source : http://www.en-wikipedia.org

Theory of Organizational - 4

Organizational Theory

Consider the following scenario in an Emergency Department at Queens Hospital Center and what you might do as a public health consultant to improve patient care:

“Currently 83 percent of patients at the Queens Hospital Center emergency room are treated and released.  They wait six to eight hours for treatment.  The goal is to decrease waiting time and the number of walkouts and to improve care and patient satisfaction.  Current Procedure: (1) Patient seen by triage nurse.  (2) Patient sent to registration.  (3) Patient waits to be seen by physician.  (4) Patient sent for any necessary lab or x-ray.  (5) Patient waits for test results to be reviewed by MD.  (6) Patient treated, discharged, or admitted.”

This scenario would be a challenge to any public health consultant.  Success at the task would most likely depend on how well the consultant grasped some basic principals about organizations.
An organization is “a structured social system consisting of groups of individuals working together to meet some agreed-on objectives."  Organizational theory (OT) is the study of organizations for the benefit of identifying common themes for the purpose of solving problems, maximizing efficiency and productivity, and meeting he needs of stakeholders.  Broadly OT can be conceptualized as studying three major subtopics: individual processes, group processes and organizational processes.
Why is OT important for public health professionals?  Since organizations pervade the field of public health: from free clinics to refugee crisis support teams to research institutions, an understanding of organizations and how they work, helps public health professionals to be more effective participants in and leaders of organizations.  
This paper will try to accomplish the enormous task of summarizing major concepts in organizational theory.  The three broad concepts that will be explored include: individual processes, including motivation theory, personality theory, and role theory; group processes includingworking in groups/communication, leadership, and power and influence; and organizational processes, as it relates to organizational structure, and organizational culture.  In the process a rudimentary introduction to select organizational models will also be presented.
Since the hope of the paper is to make OT relevant to work in the public health field, efforts have been made to end the discussion of each broad topic with a discussion of that topic’s relevance to practice.  Following the last section, organizational processes, a suggested solution to the scenario presented at the beginning of the paper, will be provided.

Individual Processes
Motivational Theory
What makes us do the things we do?  Why would two individuals, in similar circumstances, choose two different options?  The answer, in part, is motivation.  Motivation drives behavior; it is the force behind an individual’s decision to commit or not commit to certain acts or behaviors.  The elements that make up what we call motivation are complex, unique for each individual, and generally dynamic through time.
Handy suggests that motivation is the intersection of assessed need and the likelihood or nature of results. An individual calculates an “E” (energy, enthusiasm, effort) the product of need, and prediction for liklihood of acheving the desired results.  When a person enters into a contract with an organization some calculation will be made in regards to the individual’s “E” put forth.  Organizations also put forth an “E”, either by resources alone (salary), or by other items such as prestige and stature. This exchange sets the limits of a physical and “psychological contract” between the organization and the person.  The psychological contract can be defined as the shared and unshared expectations between the individual and the organization based on initial agreements and the individual’s motivation calculations.  When both parties see the psychological contract clearly, (i.e., when it is fully understood and acknowledged by both parties), the motivation of the individual becomes transparent.
Motivation theory tells us a few things about managing groups of people.  First, in order to find successful ways to change people’s behaviors in an organization you must understand the terms of the psychological contract for those individuals.  When you understand the terms by which a person joins an organization, you can better secure meeting that demand and hopefully sustain an “E” input over time.  If, however, an organization changes its “E”, or increases demands on the individual, “E” will change according to the person’s motivation calculation.  Management must carefully consider how to maintain or adjust the psychological contract in order to keep that person a productive member of the team.  This may mean an increase in salary or manpower and/or increased managerial responsibilities.
Role Theory
The roles we carry shape the way we see ourselves and help to define the behaviors we should exhibit, and those we should not.  Roles also help us to communicate responsibilities and set expectations for appropriate responses from others.  In an organization roles can help to clearly define boundaries between individuals and locis of power.
Adjusting to or meeting role expectations can however create problems.  Role ambiguity is one such problem.  Role ambiguity occurs when either the focal person or others around him/her are unclear about the nature or expectations of a role.  Role ambiguity can plague employees endeavoring to successfully attain and maintain new responsibilities or goals.  On the other hand, a person may not reach role objectives due to overloading of responsibilities or under utilization of talents and abilities.  Role conflict may arise when two roles intersect creating tension or difficulty fulfilling one or both roles.  For example, when a mother returns to work and attempts to maintain breast-feeding.  Management may not support the amount of time taken during the day to pump milk, leaving the mother at a hazard of not meeting both role expectations fully.  Role incompatibility may occur when the expectations/nature of the role is clear but is incompatible with other roles or a person’s sense of self.
Organizations need to acknowledge that its employees manage many roles and that problems or conflicts can arise since role conflicts create tensions that can change the ability of the individual to reach their goals.  Organizations should be sure to support their team members in meeting new roles by giving time for transition, or offering training and support.  In addition, when role conflict arises the organization can nurture employee’s ability to relieve tension by allowing time to devote to caring for roles outside the office.  An example of this may be support for a breast pumping station in the office and management support of breaks for pumping.
Personality Theory
            Personality is the unique and enduring traits, behaviors and emotional characteristics in an individual.  Personality can either aid or hinder meeting work goals dependent on fit.  For example, perhaps the best well know personality types are Type A vs. Type B.  Type A personalities are competitive, impatient, seekers of efficiency and always seem to be in a hurry.  Type B personalities are laid back and possess more patience and emotional stability, but tend to be less competitive.  In a work environment Type A’s tend to be more productive in the short term and pursue more challenging work.  However, they also have a greater tendency towards health risks and are less likely than Type B’s to be in top executive positions.
The later fact might be suprising.  Why would Type A’s tend to be in top executive positions more frequently than Type B’s?  Daniel Goleman might suggest that the difference in performance by classic Type A vs. Type B personalities is less due to fixed personality traits as they are for propensities to grasp the concept of emotional intellect (EQ).  Unlike IQ, EQ is the “capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and our relationships.”  (Refer to Appendix A for a presentation of Goleman’s EQ Emotional Competence Framework.)
Another possibility is that these trends are less the product of an innate character as it is the interaction of experience, personality and circumstance.  If this is the case, a person’s ability to work in groups or propensity for certain types of work may be task and time dependent, but can be changed with motivation and effort.
Organizations can play a role in developing their staff for success.  Workshops, seminars, even book clubs that focus on developing EQ an strengthen organizational success.  Allowing for a diverse set of experiences, with appropirate support can maximize and expand the capabilities of each employee.
Discussion.
Do motivation, role theory and personality factor into our day-to-day experiences in an organization in a significant way?  Three theorists would suggest individual processes are very important to the success of any organization.  The Human Resource Model, as developed by the contributions of Likert in 1967, McGregor in 1960 and Argyris in 1957, proposes that the individual is the most important, indeed the central consideration for maximizing the success of an organization.  According to The Human Resource Model each employee as an untapped well of creativity, talent and motivation, and the success of an organization depends on how well human resources are tapped. As an employee is placed in an environment where they becomes the originator and leader of their work, the organization’s goals and their individual goals become one.  When organization goals are internalized the indiviudal’s satisfaction increases, as well as the amount of motivation to be efficient and productive.  Therefore the motivation of the employee is key because talent and creativity flows when the person is motivated to do so by internalization of organizational goals.
According to the human resource model, the challenge of growth and productivity in an organization is the challenge of assisting human resources in reaching their maximum potential.  The multiple dimensions of individual processes, the calculation of motivation, role development and development of innate talent and abilities, are all factors that must be considered seriously and channeled appropriately for acheving success. 
Group Processes
Leadership
Leadership is an important topic that is discussed at length in Chapter 14 of the On-Line Textbook.  Please refer to that chapter for an in depth discussion of this topic.
Power and Influence
One needs only to superficially examine the tabloids and other media outlets to see the action of power and influence: Movie stars promoting everything from prostate exams to weight reduction pills or popular health guru’s preaching cures for all ills.  These individuals, and others like them, wield great power and influence.  Within the walls of an organization, power and influence also make an impact on individuals and groups.  Although one may often think of power and influence in terms of how it is abused, it can also be used to do positive work within an organization to drive production and to meet goals.  To that end we will consider its role within organizations and implications for change.
Influence is the action or force by an individual that modifies another person’s activity or behavior.  Power is the force behind influence to make it effective. There are three fundamental principles regarding power.  First, for power to be wielded it must have an identifiable and credible source; power would have no bearing on individuals without evidence to show that it can be used.  Sources of power are those substances, physical or not, that can be mobilized to have influence.  There are at least five broad sources of power: resource, position, expert, personal and negative power.  Resource power derives from the control of wealth and resources: for example, the boy who owns the soccer ball gets to say if there will be a game.  Position power is the power identified with fulfilling certain roles.  A Chief Executive Officer easily wields decision-making power because it stems from his appointment responsibilities.  Expert power is the power arising from knowledge and experience.  Personal power is the innate charisma a person may possess, a type of magnetism.  Finally negative power is the ability to not do something, and in so doing prevent another person(s) from gaining what they want.
Second, power is a balance between both parties.  Both the person commanding influence and the person on whom the power is being exerted commands power, the later commanding at least negative power.  Finally, power is relative.  Power can be exerted only when those to whom you are trying to wield power recognize the source of it.  Take for example the conundrum a professor of the arts would be in trying to guide decisions made by a Medicare policy review board.  His credibility as leader is diminished because the professional source of power stems from expertise in the arts not public policy.
Once a power source (or sources) are established, influence must be communicated through recognizable methods.  Each method chosen predisposes individuals to certain types of responses.  Depending on how individuals respond, their new behavior may or may not be sustainable over time.  Influence methods include, but are not limited to: the use of force and coercion, rules and procedures, exchange (bargaining, negotiating), persuasion/logic, and ecology. An example of ecology would be changing the environment people are in.  Chatty employees moved to different floors will quickly influence their behavior by changing the amount of talking that can be done in the workday.
If the goal of power and influences is to increase productivity and the quality of services delivered by changing employee behavior, then the central measurement of outcome success is individual response.  Depending on sources of power, certain individual responses are more desirable for organizational strategy because of the way they correlate with sustainability of the response over time.  Compliance is the agreement to a behavior because of force – the “I have to” response.  This implies the lack of self-initiated behavior because the person “has to” rather than “wants to”.  Generally compliance will be the result of methods of force, rules and procedure and sometimes exchange methods, and must be maintained with continual supervision.  Unlike compliance, identification and internalization have some degree of acceptance of the new behavior, however the sustainability of the behaviors are not the equal.   Identification is a behavior adopted out of a desire to please or admiration for the person wielding the power.  The manager exerting this type of power has great magnetism but must constantly be present for the behavior to continue.  The organization becomes dependent on the power figure, making the employee action not sustainable independently.  Internalization is for most situations the most desirable response because it is independent of the source of influence and is self-sustaining.  
Working in Groups
In the 1930’s and 40’s a set of experiments were done at the Western Electric’s Hawthorne plant.  The initial round of experiments involved a select group of female employees, whom constructed telephone equipment, placed in a variety of environments (changes in lighting, quota demands, rest period frequent and duration) in order to measure their effect on productivity.  To their astonishment, the research team found that the environment had little to no effect on productivity.  In all simulated environment changes the level of productivity increased, and once back in their original environments the production level of the employees continued to remain at higher than pre-experiment levels.  The team hypothesized that the major cause for increased productivity was the relationships formed between the employees and between the employees and the management.
A second round of experiments were conducted on male employees that involved in wiring and smoldering of telephone equipment at the same plant.  No change of environment was made as in the first experiment, except to place the men under observation.  The research team found what they called the “Hawthorne Effect”.  Regardless of quota set by the company, the empoyees neither under nor overproduced.  In addition, work output was equal for all members of the group.  The research team hypothesized that the workers created informal groups between themselves and their superiors, which tightly regulated production in order to maintain a group identify where no man excelled beyond the others.
This well-known experiment demonstrated for the first time in a controlled setting the role of informal groups on productivity, and that the effects of group culture in work environments could have positive or negative consequences.
Outside of the informal groups created by employees, administrators form groups in order to meet organization goals.  The nature of these types of groups also deserves some discussion.  Motivation for utilizing groups may include: (1) improved decision-making, (2). More risk taking, (and therefore presumably more innovation), and (3). Satisfying the need of individuals to be in a group.
Groups, like children, go through stages of growth.  According to Handy, there are four stages of growth: forming, storming, norming and performing.  As managers you must be sensitive to the needs of the group at each stage in order to help the group reach its goals successfully.  In the forming stage relationships are being built through the establishment of goals, role definition and time-line formation.  Quickly groups move into the storming phase, where roles, procedures and goals are questioned.  It is vital at this stage that conflicts be resolved effectively and efficiently.  In the third phase, norming, members establish a formal or informal set of rules and procedures for group members to incorporate into their work.  Open communication is vital for the norms defined to be accepted and uniformly applied.  Only when the forming, storming and norming phases are completed will groups be able to move into a performing stage of growth.
A few thoughts on groups remain.  As discussed in the leadership chapter of the On-Line Textbook, groups by anticipating the needs of the group, leaders can moitvate acitivites according to the stages the group is in.  During the forming and storming stages leaders should assist group members by encouraging participation and viable communication.  Leaders are key in maintaining group stability through effective negotiation during the storming phases.  As the group matures, reaching the norming phase the leaders should practice foresight, promoting the next level of action by introducing effective evaluation methods and standard setting adjustments as necessary.
Perhaps one of the greatest challenges for working in groups is the element that can be its greatest strength, diversity.  Those who have studied groups acknowledge that diversity in certain combinations can be key to success.  RM Belbin agrees, finding that teams do not need brilliance but balance for success.  Specific character roles, noted in appendix B, can provide the recipe for success.
Discussion
            Working in groups are building blocks for meeting organization goals.  Managers should consider ways to develop leadership in team members.  Training for versatility in leadership styles through workshops could encourage this growth.  Encouraging self-growth through concepts of EQ or even Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People2 can also provide the groundwork for leadership growth by mastering interpersonal skills.  Managers should also be proactive about identifying and cultivating talent of his/her staff.  When committees must be formed managers can help select individuals to create groups that have the balance of personalities and talents to maximize the likelihood of success.
            Each manager must also consider diversifying their own talents by analyzing spheres of social competence and goals though which to improve these abilities, but also seeking to diversity sources of power and methods of influence.  For example in an environment that is strictly managed with rules and procedures, implementing a democratic process can broaden influence by example.  This method however would require a great deal of time, effort and must be approached with focused investment.
Organizational Processes
Organizational Structure and Design
If we were to look at any organization from a bird’s eye view we could observe its structure and design.  In the biological sciences structure defines function, so too for human organizations.  Important concepts to consider in the studying of organizational structure are the flow of information and sources of power.  Consider the following diagrams:
In figure 1A all information flows through the CE either directly (before intersecting with a non-CE sphere) or indirectly with 1-2 intersections preceding.  In this environment power is very well centralized and communication well controlled.   Figure 1B is a variation of a centralized model.  The managerial style in this model is more functional with formalized relationships.  These organizational structures work best when the task is uniform, and predetermined and environment pressures are lessened; such as if a company has cornered and market and or has a stable product.  In health care this might occur when a large tertiary care center that has cornered the market for a city or isolated region.
In contrast, consider figure 1C where the division of duties is highly specialized leading to two separate functional units.  In this model work and the division of duties is highly specialized so power is widely distributed.  Communication flows in a centralized fashion within units, but no one unit controls all communication or has all power, making power decentralized.  This model may serve best in the situation where innovation and the ability to respond to environmental change quickly is key.
The challenge for all managers will be to balance the need for uniformity with the demands for diversity. Uniformity guarantees ease of control and supervision, ease of integrating work of multiple subgroups or teams (such as between offices) and economy since it is easier to pay for and maintain one system rather than many (one type of form verse multiple forms).  However the environment in which the organization is based, and for which the product is being delivered, is constantly changing making it unpredictable.  Organizations must than manage responses to these changes- diversifying their processes and thinking.
Organizations may tend to seek too much uniformity, following the classic futile fight against the law of entropy- that all things move towards greater disorder.  An organization should recognize the many demands for diversity classify their importance and decide on which to pursue, maximizing the cost of diversity with the achievement of goals carefully.
Open Systems Theory (OST) has integrated these conflicting pressures.  According to OST organizations live within dynamic environments and are shaped by them.  The organization is an organism with external (resource availability, changes of needs and demand) and internal (employee characteristics, adaptation to organizational change teams and individuals) environmental influences.  The organization evolves according to the pressure exerted by these sources and therefore is evolving by successful adaptation within this dynamic, changing and an open system.  The challenges to managers are to identify appropriate sources of influence by prioritizing them, and to guide successful adaptation by the organization.          
Organizational Culture
            Organizational culture is “a cognitive framework consisting of attitudes, values, behavioral norms, and expectations shared by the organization’s members.” Organizational cultures help to establish a sense of identity for employees within the organization and therefore can facilitate comfort and a greater likelihood of internalizing organization goals.  Organizational culture also provides a status quo and maintains stability in processes, communication and role interaction.
Culture is enforced in a number of ways, such as by ceremony, symbols and language.  Ceremonies that commemorate employees demonstrating “excellence” as evidenced by exemplifying organizational values demonstrate in front of a large audience those values to be celebrated while also reinforcing them.  Symbols, such as mission statements or encouragement slogans can constantly reinforce the vision the organization wants each individual to be guided by.  Special language can also help to define a culture and allow an individual to identify with it.
The presence of culture demands uniformity.  Managers must consider the consequence of paradigm shifts and plan in detail implementing changes.  Implement new paradigms require the complete support of the administration, and should be able to address the needs of the employee working body.
Discussion
            The two major organizational processes do not stand diaposed end of organizational theory in practice.  In fact, organizational structure and culture must reflect one another in order to reinforce the goals and mission of the organization.  Imagine an international refugee mission seeking to initiate programs for maternal child wellness in which people at the front lines aren’t in the community with the individuals divvying the resources.  Although the goal of the organization values may be to respond to the needs of the community, administers, isolated from certain staff (organizational structure) leads to the inability to reach goals.
Review of Case Study
Refering back to the scenario presented at the start of the paper, Queens Hospital hospital wants your input on how to improve the Emergency Department’s patient care, and to maximize efficiency and quality.  Utilizing OT there are a few questions we might want to ask to diagnosis the problem.
Staff related issues:  How well does staff feel supported and able to pursue work related issues.  What are staffing levels?  Are these ratios sufficient for patient workload?  If staffing levels are low this can contribute to the problem of efficiency and quality.  If this seems likely to be a problem, further questions should include:  What is staff turn over, and what is the wait time for obtaining new staff? How well are human resources retaining staff, what are the problem areas?  What are the incentives motivating work participation, and what pools are applicants are applying?  Whom, what talents and skills do we want to aim for?
Organizational Issues: How well do the different units of care delivery fit with one another?  For example if the laboratory was contracted out to a lab three miles away, the hospital may be limited by the time it takes for blood to be collected, transported, analyzed and transported back.  This process may also be on a schedule, (on the hour or half hour) which then adds the wait time for transportation.  An in-house lab staff might be considered, although cost of overhead and staffing would have to be considered for its cost.  What also is the climate in the organization, are works overall satisfied, dedicated, feel empowered to deliver excellent care?  Has the organization build and supported a culture of excellence?
Where is decision-making centralized, and what would be the benefits and disadvantages of diversifying sources of power?  In light of the patient population needs, what types of problems are most commonly seen?  Uniform vs. diversity pressures help to guide modes of action.  If a lot of non-acute conditions are presented to the hospital we might want to consider the utilization of an Urgent care model ancillary to maintaining the ER for acute conditions.
Consider other more "acute" conditions as well: What glitches to the staff frequently comment as a problem? Maybe the computer system is archaic and redundant.  Maybe there are frequent errors in obtaining and reporting labs, consults, and obtaining patient records.  One glitch could create a myriad of small, but recurrent problems, troubling staff and overall efficiency of the practice.
We will assume that acute issues, and staff related issues are not the problem, since resolving them would be self-explanatory.  We will consider only adjustments in organizational structure and design for the sake of relevance to the topic of OT.  I suggest that Queens Hospital consider a new model of care delivery, in which the Emergency Department diversifies to a decentralized model of management and adds new modes for care delivery.  The new process would look something like this: When a patient enters the hospital they are seen immediately by a Triage nurse.  The nurse has the option, after registration is complete, to one of three routes:  the nurse can channel a patient through the traditional method, to be seen by Emergency room physicians according to priority.  The nurse can also decide to transfer non-acute patients to urgent care center (an initiative of this hospital or a close center), or to initiate pre-approved protocols for common illnesses, (such as asthma) prior to visitation from the physician.
Utilizing this model has a few advantages.  By increasing the structural complexity, patients can have treatment initiated and completed at a faster rate.  This not only allows the hospital to see more patients, but it will improve patient satisfaction.  Redesigning job roles and responsibilities may also increase the motivation of staff by maximizing their control of patient care.  Nurses can more effictively utilizie their triage skills and doctors can focus on patients with conditions or complications that require their skill and training.

Organizational Culture

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
            Organizational culture is the collective behavior of humans who are part of an organization and the meanings that the people attach to their actions. Culture includes the organization values, visions, norms, working language, systems, symbols, beliefs and habits. It is also the pattern of such collective behaviors and assumptions that are taught to new organizational members as a way of perceiving, and even thinking and feeling. Organizational culture affects the way people and groups interact with each other, with clients, and with stakeholders.
Ravasi and Schultz (2006) state that organizational culture is a set of shared mental assumptions that guide interpretation and action in organizations by defining appropriate behavior for various situations. At the same time although a company may have "own unique culture", in larger organizations, there is a diverse and sometimes conflicting cultures that co-exist due to different characteristics of the management team. The organizational culture may also have negative and positive aspects.
Schein (2009), Deal & Kennedy (2000), Kotter (1992) and many others state that organizations often have very differing cultures as well as subcultures.
Usage
Organizational culture refers to culture in any type of organization be it school, university, not-for-profit groups, government agencies or business entities. In business, terms such as corporate culture and company culture are sometimes used to refer to a similar concept.
Although the idea that the term became known in businesses in the late 80s and early 90s is widespread, in fact corporate culturewas already used by managers and addressed in sociology, cultural studies and organizational theory in the beginning of the 80s.
The idea about the culture and overall environment and characteristics of organization, in fact, was first and similarly approached with the notion of organizational climate in the 60s and 70s, and the terms now are somewhat overlapping.
Part of or equivalent to:
As a part of organization
When one views organizational culture as a variable, one takes on the perspective that culture is something possessed by an organization. Culture is just one entity that adds to the organization as a whole. Culture can be manipulated and altered depending on leadership and members. This perspective believes in a strong culture where everyone buys into it
The same as the organization
Culture as root metaphor sees the organization as its culture, created through communication and symbols, or competing metaphors. Culture is basic with personal experience producing a variety of perspectives.
The organizational communication perspective on culture views culture in three different ways:
•         Traditionalism: views culture through objective things such as stories, rituals, and symbols
•         Interpretivism: views culture through a network of shared meanings (organization members sharing subjective meanings)
•         Critical-interpretivism: views culture through a network of shared meanings as well as the power struggles created by a similar network of competing meanings
Types
Several methods have been used to classify organizational culture. While there is no single "type" of organizational culture and organizational cultures vary widely from one organization to the next, commonalities do exist and some researchers have developed models to describe different indicators of organizational cultures. Some are described below:
Hofstede
Main: Hofstede's cultural dimensions theory
Hofstede (1980) looked for global differences between over 100,000 of IBM's employees in 50 different countries and three regions of the world, in an attempt to find aspects of culture that might influence business behavior. He suggested about cultural differences existing in regions and nations, and the importance of international awareness and multiculturalism for the own cultural introspection. Cultural differences reflect differences in thinking and social action, and even in "mental programs", a term Hofstede uses for predictable behaviour. Hofstede relates culture to ethnic and regional groups, but also organizations, profession, family, to society and subcultural groups, national political systems and legislation, etc.
Hofstede suggests of the need of changing "mental programs" with changing behaviour first which will lead to value change and he suggests that however certain groups like Jews, Gypsies and Basques have maintained their identity through centuries without changing.
Hofstede demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behavior of organizations and identified fourdimensions of culture (later five) in his study of national cultures:
•        Power distance (Mauk Mulder, 1977) - Different societies find different solutions on social inequality. Although invisible, inside organizations power inequality of the "boss-subordinates relationships" is functional and according to Hofstede reflects the way inequality is addressed in the society. "According to Mulder's Power Distance Reduction theory subordinates will try to reduce the power distance between themselves and their bosses and bosses will try to maintain or enlarge it", but there is also a degree to which a society expects there to be differences in the levels of power. A high score suggests that there is an expectation that some individuals wield larger amounts of power than others. A low score reflects the view that all people should have equal rights.
•        Uncertainty avoidance is the coping with uncertainty about the future. Society copes with it with technology, law and religion(however different societies have different ways to addressing it), and according to Hofstede organizations deal with it with technology, law and rituals or in two ways - rational and non-rational, where rituals being the non-rational. Hofstede listed as rituals the memos and reports, some parts of the accounting system, large part of the planning and control systems, and the nomination of experts.
•        Individualism vs. collectivism - disharmony of interests on personal and collective goals (Parsons and Shils, 1951). Hofstede brings that society's expectations of Individualism/Collectivism will be reflected by the employee inside the organization. Collectivist societies will have more emotional dependence of members on their organizations, when in equilibrium - organization is expected to show responsibility on members. Extreme individualism is seen in the US, in fact in US collectivism is seen as "bad". Other cultures and societies than the US will therefore seek to resolve social and organizational problems in ways different than the American one. Hofstede says that capitalist market economy fosters individualism and competition and depends on it but individualism is also related to the development of middle class. Research indicates that some people and cultures might have both high individualism and high collectivism, for example, and someone who highly values duty to his or her group does not necessarily give a low priority to personal freedom and self-sufficiency.
•        Masculinity vs. femininity - reflect whether certain society is predominantly male or female in terms of cultural values, gender rolesand power relations.
•        Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation  which he describes as "The long-term orientation dimension can be interpreted as dealing with society’s search for virtue. Societies with a short-term orientation generally have a strong concern with establishing the absolute Truth. They are normative in their thinking. They exhibit great respect for traditions, a relatively small propensity to save for the future, and a focus on achieving quick results. In societies with a long-term orientation, people believe that truth depends very much on situation, context and time. They show an ability to adapt traditions to changed conditions, a strong propensity to save and invest, thriftiness, and perseverance in achieving results."
O'Reilly, Chatman, and Caldwell
Two common models and their associated measurement tools have been developed by O’Reilly et al. and Denison.
O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell (1991) developed a model based on the belief that cultures can be distinguished by values that are reinforced within organizations. Their Organizational Profile Model (OCP) is a self reporting tool which makes distinctions according seven categories - Innovation, Stability, Respect for People, Outcome Orientation, Attention to Detail, Team Orientation, and Aggressiveness. The model is not intended to measure how organizational culture effects organizational performance, rather it measures associations between the personalities of individuals in the organization and the organization's culture.
Employee values are measured against organizational values to predict employee intentions to stay, and predict turnover. This is done through instrument like Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) to measure employee commitment.
Daniel Denison’s model (1990) asserts that organizational culture can be described by four general dimensions – Mission, Adaptability, Involvement and Consistency. Each of these general dimensions is further described by the following three sub-dimensions:
•        Mission - Strategic Direction and Intent, Goals and Objectives and Vision
•        Adaptability - Creating Change, Customer Focus and Organizational Learning
•        Involvement - Empowerment, Team Orientation and Capability Development
•        Consistency - Core Values, Agreement, Coordination/Integration
Denison’s model also allows cultures to be described broadly as externally or internally focused as well as flexible versus stable. The model has been typically used to diagnose cultural problems in organizations.
Deal and Kennedy
Deal and Kennedy (1982) defined organizational culture as the way things get done around here.
Deal and Kennedy created a model of culture that is based on 4 different types of organizations. They each focus on how quickly the organization receives feedback, the way members are rewarded, and the level of risks taken:
1.      Work-hard, play-hard culture: This has rapid feedback/reward and low risk resulting in: Stress coming from quantity of work rather than uncertainty. High-speed action leading to high-speed recreation. Examples: Restaurants, software companies.
2.      Tough-guy macho culture: This has rapid feedback/reward and high risk, resulting in the following: Stress coming from high risk and potential loss/gain of reward. Focus on the present rather than the longer-term future. Examples: police, surgeons, sports.
3.      Process culture: This has slow feedback/reward and low risk, resulting in the following: Low stress, plodding work, comfort and security. Stress that comes from internal politics and stupidity of the system. Development of bureaucracies and other ways of maintaining the status quo. Focus on security of the past and of the future. Examples: banks, insurance companies.
4.      Bet-the-company culture: This has slow feedback/reward and high risk, resulting in the following: Stress coming from high risk and delay before knowing if actions have paid off. The long view is taken, but then much work is put into making sure things happen as planned. Examples: aircraft manufacturers, oil companies.
Edgar Schein
According to Schein (1992), culture is the most difficult organizational attribute to change, outlasting organizational products, services, founders and leadership and all other physical attributes of the organization. His organizational model illuminates culture from the standpoint of the observer, described by three cognitive levels of organizational culture.
At the first and most cursory level of Schein's model is organizational attributes that can be seen, felt and heard by the uninitiated observer - collectively known as artifacts. Included are the facilities, offices, furnishings, visible awards and recognition, the way that its members dress, how each person visibly interacts with each other and with organizational outsiders, and even company slogans,mission statements and other operational creeds.
Artifacts comprise the physical components of the organization that relay cultural meaning. Daniel Denison (1990) describes artifacts as the tangible aspects of culture shared by members of an organization. Verbal, behavioral and physical artifacts are the surface manifestations of organizational culture.
Rituals, the collective interpersonal behavior and values as demonstrated by that behavior, constitute the fabric of an organization's culture The contents of myths, stories, and sagas reveal the history of an organization and influence how people understand what their organization values and believes. Language, stories, and myths are examples of verbal artifacts and are represented in rituals and ceremonies. Technology and art exhibited by members or an organization are examples of physical artifacts.
The next level deals with the professed culture of an organization's members - the values. Shared values are individuals’ preferences regarding certain aspects of the organization’s culture (e.g. loyalty, customer service). At this level, local and personal values are widely expressed within the organization. Basic beliefs and assumptions include individuals' impressions about the trustworthiness and supportiveness of an organization, and are often deeply ingrained within the organization’s culture. Organizational behavior at this level usually can be studied by interviewing the organization's membership and using questionnaires to gather attitudes about organizational membership.
At the third and deepest level, the organization's tacit assumptions are found. These are the elements of culture that are unseen and not cognitively identified in everyday interactions between organizational members. Additionally, these are the elements of culture which are often taboo to discuss inside the organization. Many of these 'unspoken rules' exist without the conscious knowledge of the membership. Those with sufficient experience to understand this deepest level of organizational culture usually become acclimatized to its attributes over time, thus reinforcing the invisibility of their existence. Surveys and casual interviews with organizational members cannot draw out these attributes—rather much more in-depth means is required to first identify then understand organizational culture at this level. Notably, culture at this level is the underlying and driving element often missed by organizational behaviorists.
Using Schein's model, understanding paradoxical organizational behaviors becomes more apparent. For instance, an organization can profess highly aesthetic and moral standards at the second level of Schein's model while simultaneously displaying curiously opposing behavior at the third and deepest level of culture. Superficially, organizational rewards can imply one organizational norm but at the deepest level imply something completely different. This insight offers an understanding of the difficulty that organizational newcomers have in assimilating organizational culture and why it takes time to become acclimatized. It also explains why organizational change agents usually fail to achieve their goals: underlying tacit cultural norms are generally not understood before would-be change agents begin their actions. Merely understanding culture at the deepest level may be insufficient to institute cultural change because the dynamics of interpersonal relationships (often under threatening conditions) are added to the dynamics of organizational culture while attempts are made to institute desired change.
Factors and elements
Gerry Johnson (1988) described a cultural web, identifying a number of elements that can be used to describe or influence organizational culture:
•        The paradigm: What the organization is about, what it does, its mission, its values.
•        Control systems: The processes in place to monitor what is going on. Role cultures would have vast rulebooks. There would be more reliance on individualism in a power culture.
•        Organizational structures: Reporting lines, hierarchies, and the way that work flows through the business.
•        Power structures: Who makes the decisions, how widely spread is power, and on what is power based?
•        Symbols: These include organizational logos and designs, but also extend to symbols of power such as parking spaces and executive washrooms.
•        Rituals and routines: Management meetings, board reports and so on may become more habitual than necessary.
•        Stories and myths: build up about people and events, and convey a message about what is valued within the organization.
These elements may overlap. Power structures may depend on control systems, which may exploit the very rituals that generate stories which may not be true.
According to Schein (1992), the two main reasons why cultures develop in organizations is due to external adaptation and internal integration. External adaptation reflects an evolutionary approach to organizational culture and suggests that cultures develop and persist because they help an organization to survive and flourish. If the culture is valuable, then it holds the potential for generating sustained competitive advantages. Additionally, internal integration is an important function since social structures are required for organizations to exist. Organizational practices are learned through socialization at the workplace. Work environments reinforce culture on a daily basis by encouraging employees to exercise cultural values. Organizational culture is shaped by multiple factors, including the following:
•        External environment
•        Industry
•        Size and nature of the organization’s workforce
•        Technologies the organization uses
•        The organization’s history and ownership
Communicative Indicators
There are many different types of communication that contribute in creating an organizational culture:
•        Metaphors such as comparing an organization to a machine or a family reveal employees’ shared meanings of experiences at the organization.
•        Stories can provide examples for employees of how to or not to act in certain situations.
•        Rites and ceremonies combine stories, metaphors, and symbols into one. Several different kinds of rites that affect organizational culture:
•         Rites of passage: employees move into new roles
•         Rites of degradation: employees have power taken away from them
•         Rites of enhancement: public recognition for an employee’s accomplishments
•         Rites of renewal: improve existing social structures
•         Rites of conflict reduction: resolve arguments between certain members or groups
•         Rites of integration: reawaken feelings of membership in the organization
•        Reflexive comments are explanations, justifications, and criticisms of our own actions. This includes:
•         Plans: comments about anticipated actions
•         Commentaries: comments about action in the present
•         Accounts: comments about an action or event that has already occurred
Such comments reveal interpretive meanings held by the speaker as well as the social rules they follow.
•         Fantasy Themes are common creative interpretations of events that reflect beliefs, values, and goals of the organization. They lead to rhetorical visions, or views of the organization and its environment held by organization members.
Schemata
Schemata (plural of schema) are knowledge structures a person forms from past experiences, allowing the person to respond to similar events more efficiently in the future by guiding the processing of information. A person's schemata are created through interaction with others, and thus inherently involve communication.
Stanley G. Harris (1994) argues that five categories of in-organization schemata are necessary for organizational culture:
1.      Self-in-organization schemata: a person's concept of oneself within the context of the organization, including her/his personality, roles, and behavior.
2.      Person-in-organization schemata: a person's memories, impressions, and expectations of other individuals within the organization.
3.      Organization schemata: a subset of person schemata, a person's generalized perspective on others as a whole in the organization.
4.      Object/concept-in-organization schemata: knowledge an individual has of organization aspects other than of other persons.
5.      Event-in-organization schemata: a person's knowledge of social events within an organization.
All of these categories together represent a person's knowledge of an organization. Organizational culture is created when the schematas (schematic structures) of differing individuals across and within an organization come to resemble each other (when any one person's schemata come to resemble another person's schemata because of mutual organizational involvement), primarily done through organizational communication, as individuals directly or indirectly share knowledge and meanings.
Strong/weak cultures
Strong culture is said to exist where staff respond to stimulus because of their alignment to organizational values. In such environments, strong cultures help firms operate like well-oiled machines, engaging in outstanding execution with only minor adjustments to existing procedures as needed.
Conversely, there is weak culture where there is little alignment with organizational values, and control must be exercised through extensive procedures and bureaucracy.
Research shows that organizations that foster strong cultures have clear values that give employees a reason to embrace the culture. A "strong" culture may be especially beneficial to firms operating in the service sector since members of these organizations are responsible for delivering the service and for evaluations important constituents make about firms. Research indicates that organizations may derive the following benefits from developing strong and productive cultures:
•         Better aligning the company towards achieving its vision, mission, and goals
•         High employee motivation and loyalty
•         Increased team cohesiveness among the company's various departments and divisions
•         Promoting consistency and encouraging coordination and control within the company
•         Shaping employee behavior at work, enabling the organization to be more efficient
Where culture is strong, people do things because they believe it is the right thing to do, and there is a risk of another phenomenon,groupthink. "Groupthink" was described by Irving Janis. He defined it as "a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternatives of action." (Irving Janis, 1972, p. 9) This is a state in which even if they have different ideas, do not challenge organizational thinking, and therefore there is a reduced capacity for innovative thoughts. This could occur, for example, where there is heavy reliance on a central charismatic figure in the organization, or where there is an evangelical belief in the organization' values, or also in groups where a friendly climate is at the base of their identity (avoidance of conflict). In fact, groupthink is very common and happens all the time, in almost every group. Members that are defiant are often turned down or seen as a negative influence by the rest of the group because they bring conflict.

Healthy organizational cultures
Organizations should strive for what is considered a "healthy" organizational culture in order to increase productivity, growth, efficiency and reduce counterproductive behavior and turnover of employees. A variety of characteristics describe a healthy culture, including:
•         Acceptance and appreciation for diversity
•         Regard for and fair treatment of each employee as well as respect for each employee’s contribution to the company
•         Employee pride and enthusiasm for the organization and the work performed
•         Equal opportunity for each employee to realize their full potential within the company
•         Strong communication with all employees regarding policies and company issues
•         Strong company leaders with a strong sense of direction and purpose
•         Ability to compete in industry innovation and customer service, as well as price
•         Lower than average turnover rates (perpetuated by a healthy culture)
•         Investment in learning, training, and employee knowledge
Additionally, performance oriented cultures have been shown to possess statistically better financial growth. Such cultures possess high employee involvement, strong internal communications and an acceptance and encouragement of a healthy level of risk-taking in order to achieve innovation. Additionally, organizational cultures that explicitly emphasize factors related to the demands placed on them by industry technology and growth will be better performers in their industries.
According to Kotter and Heskett (1992), organizations with adaptive cultures perform much better than organizations with unadaptive cultures. An adaptive culture translates into organizational success; it is characterized by managers paying close attention to all of their constituencies, especially customers, initiating change when needed, and taking risks. An unadaptive culture can significantly reduce a firm's effectiveness, disabling the firm from pursuing all its competitive/operational options.
Charles Handy
Charles Handy (1976), popularized Roger Harrison (1972) with linking organizational structure to organizational culture. The described four types of culture are:
1.      Power culture: concentrates power among a small group or a central figure and its control is radiating from its center like a web. Power cultures need only a few rules and little bureaucracy but swift in decisions can ensue.
2.      Role culture: authorities are delegated as such within a highly defined structure. These organizations form hierarchical bureaucracies, where power derives from the personal position and rarely from an expert power. Control is made by procedures (which are highly valued), strict roles descriptions and authority definitions. These organizations have consistent systems and are very predictable. This culture is often represented by a "Roman Building" having pillars. These pillars represent the functional departments.
3.      Task culture: teams are formed to solve particular problems. Power is derived from the team with the expertise to execute against a task. This culture uses a small team approach, where people are highly skilled and specialized in their own area of expertise. Additionally, these cultures often feature the multiple reporting lines seen in a matrix structure.
4.      Person culture: formed where all individuals believe themselves superior to the organization. It can become difficult for such organizations to continue to operate, since the concept of an organization suggests that a group of like-minded individuals pursue organizational goals. However some professional partnerships operate well as person cultures, because each partner brings a particular expertise and clientele to the firm.
Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn
Kim Cameron and Robert Quinn (1999) made a research on organizational effectiveness and success. Based on the Competing Values Framework, they developed the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument that distinguishes four culture types.
Competing values produce polarities like flexibility vs. stability and internal vs. external focus - these two polarities were found to be most important in defining organizational success. The polarities construct a quadrant with four types of culture:
•         Clan culture (internal focus and flexible) - A friendly workplace where leaders act like father figures.
•         Adhocracy culture (external focus and flexible) - A dynamic workplace with leaders that stimulate innovation.
•         Market culture (external focus and controlled) - A competitive workplace with leaders like hard drivers
•         Hierarchy culture (internal focus and controlled) - A structured and formalized workplace where leaders act like coordinators.
Cameron & Quinn designated six key aspects that will form organizational culture which can be assessed in the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) thus producing a mix of the four archetypes of culture. Each organization or team will have its unique mix of culture types.
Clan cultures are most strongly associated with positive employee attitudes and product and service quality, whereas market cultures are most strongly related with innovation and financial effectiveness criteria. The primary belief in market cultures is that clear goals and contingent rewards motivate employees to aggressively perform and meet stakeholders' expectations; a core belief in clan cultures is that the organization’s trust in and commitment to employees facilitates open communication and employee involvement. These differing results suggest that it is important for executive leaders to consider the match between strategic initiatives and organizational culture when determining how to embed a culture that produces competitive advantage. By assessing the current organizational culture as well as the preferred situation, the gap and direction to change can be made visible as a first step to changing organizational culture.
Robert A. Cooke
Robert A. Cooke, PhD, defines culture as the behaviors that members believe are required to fit in and meet expectations within their organization. The Organizational Culture Inventory measures twelve behavioral norms that are grouped into three general types of cultures:
•         Constructive cultures, in which members are encouraged to interact with people and approach tasks in ways that help them meet their higher-order satisfaction needs.
•         Passive/defensive cultures, in which members believe they must interact with people in ways that will not threaten their own security.
•         Aggressive/defensive cultures, in which members are expected to approach tasks in forceful ways to protect their status and security.
Constructive cultures
Constructive cultures are where people are encouraged to be in communication with their co-workers, and work as teams, rather than only as individuals. In positions where people do a complex job, rather than something simple like a mechanic one, this sort of culture is an efficient one.
1.      Achievement: completing a task successfully, typically by effort, courage, or skill (pursue a standard of excellence) (explore alternatives before acting) - Based on the need to attain high-quality results on challenging projects, the belief that outcomes are linked to one's effort rather than chance and the tendency to personally set challenging yet realistic goals. People high in this style think ahead and plan, explore alternatives before acting and learn from their mistakes.
2.      Self-actualizing: realization or fulfillment of one's talents and potentialities - considered as a drive or need present in everyone (think in unique and independent ways) (do even simple tasks well) - Based on needs for personal growth, self-fulfillment and the realisation of one's potential. People with this style demonstrate a strong desire to learn and experience things, creative yet realistic thinking and a balanced concern for people and tasks.
3.      Humanistic-encouraging: help others to grow and develop (resolve conflicts constructively) - Reflects an interest in the growth and development of people, a high positive regard for them and sensitivity to their needs. People high in this style devote energy to coaching and counselling others, are thoughtful and considerate and provide people with support and encouragement.
4.      Affiliative: treat people as more valuable than things (cooperate with others) - Reflects an interest in developing and sustaining pleasant relationships. People high in this style share their thoughts and feelings, are friendly and cooperative and make others feel a part of things.
Organizations with constructive cultures encourage members to work to their full potential, resulting in high levels of motivation, satisfaction, teamwork, service quality, and sales growth. Constructive norms are evident in environments where quality is valued over quantity, creativity is valued over conformity, cooperation is believed to lead to better results than competition, and effectiveness is judged at the system level rather than the component level. These types of cultural norms are consistent with (and supportive of) the objectives behind empowerment, total quality management, transformational leadership, continuous improvement, re-engineering, and learning organizations.
Passive/defensive cultures
Norms that reflect expectations for members to interact with people in ways that will not threaten their own security are in the Passive/Defensive Cluster.
The four Passive/Defensive cultural norms are:
•         Approval
•         Conventional
•         Dependent
•         Avoidance
In organizations with Passive/Defensive cultures, members feel pressured to think and behave in ways that are inconsistent with the way they believe they should in order to be effective. People are expected to please others (particularly superiors) and avoid interpersonal conflict. Rules, procedures, and orders are more important than personal beliefs, ideas, and judgment. Passive/Defensive cultures experience a lot of unresolved conflict and turnover, and organizational members report lower levels of motivation and satisfaction.
Aggressive/defensive cultures
This style is characterized with more emphasis on task than people. Because of the very nature of this style, people tend to focus on their own individual needs at the expense of the success of the group. The aggressive/defensive style is very stressful, and people using this style tend to make decisions based on status as opposed to expertise.[19]
1.      Oppositional - This cultural norm is based on the idea that a need for security that takes the form of being very critical and cynical at times. People who use this style are more likely to question others work; however, asking those tough question often leads to a better product. Nonetheless, those who use this style may be overly-critical toward others, using irrelevant or trivial flaws to put others down.
2.      Power - This cultural norm is based on the idea that there is a need for prestige and influence. Those who use this style often equate their own self-worth with controlling others. Those who use this style have a tendency to dictate others opposing to guiding others’ actions.
3.      Competitive - This cultural norm is based on the idea of a need to protect one’s status. Those who use this style protect their own status by comparing themselves to other individuals and outperforming them. Those who use this style are seekers of appraisal and recognition from others.
4.      Perfectionistic - This cultural norm is based on the need to attain flawless results. Those who often use this style equate their self-worth with the attainment of extremely high standards. Those who often use this style are always focused on details and place excessive demands on themselves and others.
Organizations with aggressive/defensive cultures encourage or require members to appear competent, controlled, and superior. Members who seek assistance, admit shortcomings, or concede their position are viewed as incompetent or weak. These organizations emphasize finding errors, weeding out "mistakes" and encouraging members to compete against each other rather than competitors. The short-term gains associated with these strategies are often at the expense of long-term growth.
Entrepreneurial organizational culture
Stephen McGuire (2003) defined and validated a model of organizational culture that predicts revenue from new sources. An Entrepreneurial Organizational Culture (EOC) is a system of shared values, beliefs and norms of members of an organization, including valuing creativity and tolerance of creative people, believing that innovating and seizing market opportunities are appropriate behaviors to deal with problems of survival and prosperity, environmental uncertainty, and competitors' threats, and expecting organizational members to behave accordingly.
Elements
•         People and empowerment focused
•         Value creation through innovation and change
•         Attention to the basics
•         Hands-on management
•         Doing the right thing
•         Freedom to grow and to fail
•         Commitment and personal responsibility
•         Emphasis on the future
Tribal culture
David Logan and coauthors have proposed in their book Tribal Leadership that organizational cultures change in stages, based on an analysis of human groups and tribal cultures. They identify five basic stages:
1.      Life sucks (a subsystem severed from other functional systems like tribes, gangs and prison--2 percent of population);
2.      My life sucks (I am stuck in the Dumb Motor Vehicle line and can't believe I have to spend my time in this lost triangle of ineffectiveness--25 percent of population);
3.      I'm great (and you're not, I am detached from you and will dominate you regardless of your intent --48 percent of population);
4.      We are great, but other groups suck (citing Zappo's and an attitude of unification around more than individual competence--22 percent of population) and
5.      Life is great (citing Desmond Tutu's hearing on truth and values as the basis of reconciliation--3 percent of population).
This model of organizational culture provides a map and context for leading an organization through the five stages.
Personal and organizational culture
Main: Personality psychology, Identity (social science)
Organizational culture is taught to the person as culture is taught by his/her parents thus changing and modeling his/her personal culture.[22] Indeed employees and people applying for a job are advised to match their "personality to a company’s culture" and fit to it.[23] Some researchers even suggested and have made case studies research on personality changing.[24]
National and organizational culture
Corporate culture is used to control, coordinate, and integrate of company subsidiaries. However differences in national cultures exist contributing to differences in the views on the management. Differences between national cultures are deep rooted values of the respective cultures, and these cultural values can shape how people expect companies to be run, and how relationships between leaders and followers should be resulting to differences between the employer and the employee on expectations. (Geert Hofstede, 1991)
Multiplicity
Xibao Zhang (2009) carried out an empirical study of culture emergence in the Sino-Western international cross-cultural management (SW-ICCM) context in China. Field data were collected by interviewing Western expatriates and Chinese professionals working in this context, supplemented by non-participant observation and documentary data. The data were then analyzed in grounded fashion to formulate theme-based substantive theories and a formal theory.
The major finding of this study is that human cognition contains three components, or three broad types of "cultural rules of behavior", namely, Values, Expectations, and Ad Hoc Rules, each of which has a mutually conditioning relationship with behavior. The three cognitive components are different in terms of the scope and duration of their mutual shaping with behavior. Values are universal and enduring rules of behavior; Expectations, on the other hand, are context-specific behavioral rules; while Ad Hoc Rules are improvised rules of behavior that the human mind devises contingent upon a particular occasion. Furthermore, they need not be consistent, and frequently are not, among themselves. Metaphorically, they can be compared to a multi-carriage train, which allows for the relative lateral movements by individual carriages so as to accommodate bumps and turns in the tracks. In fact, they provide a "shock-absorber mechanism", so to speak, which enables individuals in SW-ICCM contexts to cope with conflicts in cultural practices and values, and to accommodate and adapt themselves to cultural contexts where people from different national cultural backgrounds work together over extended time. It also provides a powerful framework which explains how interactions by individuals in SW-ICCM contexts give rise to emerging hybrid cultural practices characterized by both stability and change.
One major theoretical contribution of this "multi-carriage train" perspective is its allowance for the existence of inconsistencies among the three cognitive components in their mutual conditioning with behavior. This internal inconsistency view is in stark contrast to the traditional internal consistency assumption explicitly or tacitly held by many culture scholars. The other major theoretical contribution, which follows logically from the first one, is to view culture as an overarching entity which is made of a multiplicity of Values, Expectations, and Ad Hoc Rules. This notion of one (multiplicity) culture to an organization leads to the classification of culture along its path of emergence into nascent, adolescent, and mature types, each of which is distinct in terms of the pattern of the three cognitive components and behavior.
Research suggests that numerous outcomes have been associated either directly or indirectly with organizational culture. A healthy and robust organizational culture may provide various benefits, including the following:
•         Competitive edge derived from innovation and customer service
•         Consistent, efficient employee performance
•         Team cohesiveness
•         High employee morale
•         Strong company alignment towards goal achievement
Although little empirical research exists to support the link between organizational culture and organizational performance, there is little doubt among experts that this relationship exists. Organizational culture can be a factor in the survival or failure of an organization - although this is difficult to prove considering the necessary longitudinal analyses are hardly feasible. The sustained superior performance of firms like IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Procter & Gamble, and McDonald's may be, at least partly, a reflection of their organizational cultures.
A 2003 Harvard Business School study reported that culture has a significant impact on an organization’s long-term economic performance. The study examined the management practices at 160 organizations over ten years and found that culture can enhance performance or prove detrimental to performance. Organizations with strong performance-oriented cultures witnessed far better financial growth. Additionally, a 2002 Corporate Leadership Council study found that cultural traits such as risk taking, internal communications, and flexibility are some of the most important drivers of performance, and may impact individual performance. Furthermore, innovativeness, productivity through people, and the other cultural factors cited by Peters and Waterman (1982) also have positive economic consequences.
Denison, Haaland, and Goelzer (2004) found that culture contributes to the success of the organization, but not all dimensions contribute the same. It was found that the impacts of these dimensions differ by global regions, which suggests that organizational culture is impacted by national culture. Additionally, Clarke (2006) found that a safety climate is related to an organization’s safety record.
Organizational culture is reflected in the way people perform tasks, set objectives, and administer the necessary resources to achieve objectives. Culture affects the way individuals make decisions, feel, and act in response to the opportunities and threats affecting the organization.
Adkins and Caldwell (2004) found that job satisfaction was positively associated with the degree to which employees fit into both the overall culture and subculture in which they worked. A perceived mismatch of the organization’s culture and what employees felt the culture should be is related to a number of negative consequences including lower job satisfaction, higher job strain, general stress, and turnover intent.
It has been proposed that organizational culture may impact the level of employee creativity, the strength of employee motivation, and the reporting of unethical behavior, but more research is needed to support these conclusions.
Organizational culture also has an impact on recruitment and retention. Individuals tend to be attracted to and remain engaged in organizations that they perceive to be compatible. Additionally, high turnover may be a mediating factor in the relationship between culture and organizational performance. Deteriorating company performance and an unhealthy work environment are signs of an overdue cultural assessment.
Change
When an organization does not possess a healthy culture or requires some kind of organizational culture change, the change process can be daunting. Culture change may be necessary to reduce employee turnover, influence employee behavior, make improvements to the company, refocus the company objectives and/or rescale the organization, provide better customer service, and/or achieve specific company goals and results. Culture change is impacted by a number of elements, including the external environment and industry competitors, change in industry standards, technology changes, the size and nature of the workforce, and the organization’s history and management.
There are a number of methodologies specifically dedicated to organizational culture change such as Peter Senge’s Fifth Discipline. These are also a variety of psychological approaches that have been developed into a system for specific outcomes such as the Fifth Discipline’s "learning organization" or Directive Communication’s "corporate culture evolution." Ideas and strategies, on the other hand, seem to vary according to particular influences that affect culture.
Burman and Evans (2008) argue that it is 'leadership' that affects culture rather than 'management', and describe the difference. When one wants to change an aspect of the culture of an organization one has to keep in consideration that this is a long term project. Corporate culture is something that is very hard to change and employees need time to get used to the new way of organizing. For companies with a very strong and specific culture it will be even harder to change.
Prior to a cultural change initiative, a needs assessment is needed to identify and understand the current organizational culture. This can be done through employee surveys, interviews, focus groups, observation, customer surveys where appropriate, and other internal research, to further identify areas that require change. The company must then assess and clearly identify the new, desired culture, and then design a change process.
Cummings & Worley (2004, p. 491 – 492) give the following six guidelines for cultural change, these changes are in line with the eight distinct stages mentioned by Kotter (1995, p. 2):
1.      Formulate a clear strategic vision (stage 1, 2, and 3). In order to make a cultural change effective a clear vision of the firm’s new strategy, shared values and behaviors is needed. This vision provides the intention and direction for the culture change (Cummings & Worley, 2004, p. 490).
2.      Display top-management commitment (stage 4). It is very important to keep in mind that culture change must be managed from the top of the organization, as willingness to change of the senior management is an important indicator (Cummings & Worley, 2004, page 490). The top of the organization should be very much in favor of the change in order to actually implement the change in the rest of the organization. De Caluwé & Vermaak (2004, p 9) provide a framework with five different ways of thinking about change.
3.      Model culture change at the highest level (stage 5). In order to show that the management team is in favor of the change, the change has to be notable at first at this level. The behavior of the management needs to symbolize the kinds of values and behaviors that should be realized in the rest of the company. It is important that the management shows the strengths of the current culture as well, it must be made clear that the current organizational does not need radical changes, but just a few adjustments. (See for more: Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Sathe, 1983; Schall; 1983; Weick, 1985; DiTomaso, 1987). This process may also include creating committee, employee task forces, value managers, or similar. Change agents are key in the process and key communicators of the new values. They should possess courage, flexibility, excellent interpersonal skills, knowledge of the company, and patience. As McCune (May 1999) puts it, these individual should be catalysts, not dictators.
4.      Modify the organization to support organizational change. The fourth step is to modify the organization to support organizational change. This includes identifying what current systems, policies, procedures and rules need to be changed in order to align with the new values and desired culture. This may include a change to accountability systems, compensation, benefits and reward structures, and recruitment and retention programs to better align with the new values and to send a clear message to employees that the old system and culture are in the past.
5.      Select and socialize newcomers and terminate deviants (stage 7 & 8 of Kotter, 1995, p. 2). A way to implement a culture is to connect it to organizational membership, people can be selected and terminate in terms of their fit with the new culture (Cummings & Worley, 2004, p. 491). Encouraging employee motivation and loyalty to the company is key and will also result in a healthy culture. The company and change managers should be able to articulate the connections between the desired behavior and how it will impact and improve the company’s success, to further encourage buy-in in the change process. Training should be provided to all employees to understand the new processes, expectations and systems.
6.      Develop ethical and legal sensitivity. Changes in culture can lead to tensions between organizational and individual interests, which can result in ethical and legal problems for practitioners. This is particularly relevant for changes in employee integrity, control, equitable treatment and job security (Cummings & Worley, 2004, p. 491). It is also beneficial, as part of the change process, to include an evaluation process, conducted periodically to monitor the change progress and identify areas that need further development. This step will also identify obstacles of change and resistant employees and to acknowledge and reward employee improvement, which will also encourage continued change and evolvement. It may also be helpful and necessary to incorporate new change managers to refresh the process. Outside consultants may also be useful in facilitating the change process and providing employee training. Change of culture in the organizations is very important and inevitable. Culture innovations is bound to be because it entails introducing something new and substantially different from what prevails in existing cultures. Cultural innovation [27] is bound to be more difficult than cultural maintenance. People often resist changes hence it is the duty of the management to convince people that likely gain will outweigh the losses. Besides institutionalization, deification is another process that tends to occur in strongly developed organizational cultures. The organization itself may come to be regarded as precious in itself, as a source of pride, and in some sense unique. Organizational members begin to feel a strong bond with it that transcends material returns given by the organization, and they begin to identify with it. The organization turns into a sort of clan.
Mergers, organizational culture, and cultural leadership
One of the biggest obstacles in the way of the merging of two organizations is organizational culture. Each organization has its own unique culture and most often, when brought together, these cultures clash. When mergers fail employees point to issues such as identity, communication problems, human resources problems, ego clashes, and inter-group conflicts, which all fall under the category of "cultural differences".
One way to combat such difficulties is through cultural leadership. Organizational leaders must also be cultural leaders and help facilitate the change from the two old cultures into the one new culture. This is done through cultural innovation followed by cultural maintenance.
•         Cultural innovation includes:
•         Creating a new culture: recognizing past cultural differences and setting realistic expectations for change
•         Changing the culture: weakening and replacing the old cultures
•         Cultural maintenance includes:
•         Integrating the new culture: reconciling the differences between the old cultures and the new one
•         Embodying the new culture: Establishing, affirming, and keeping the new culture
Corporate subcultures
Corporate culture is the total sum of the values, customs, traditions, and meanings that make a company unique. Corporate culture is often called "the character of an organization", since it embodies the vision of the company's founders. The values of a corporate culture influence the ethical standards within a corporation, as well as managerial behavior.
Senior management may try to determine a corporate culture. They may wish to impose corporate values and standards of behavior that specifically reflect the objectives of the organization. In addition, there will also be an extant internal culture within the workforce. Work-groups within the organization have their own behavioral quirks and interactions which, to an extent, affect the whole system. Roger Harrison's four-culture typology, and adapted by Charles Handy, suggests that unlike organizational culture, corporate culture can be 'imported'. For example, computer technicians will have expertise, language and behaviors gained independently of the organization, but their presence can influence the culture of the organization as a whole.
Legal aspects
Corporate culture can be found as a cause of injuries and be a reason for fining companies in US like in the case of U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration that fined of $10,825,368 Performance Coal Co. in April 2010, the largest fine in agency history, following its investigation of explosion at the Upper Big Branch-South Mine, operated by Performance Coal Co., a subsidiary of Massey Energy Co.[29]
Critical views
Criticism of the usage of the term by managers began already in its emergence in the early 80s.[4] Most of the criticism comes from the writers in critical management studies who for example express skepticism about the functionalist and unitarist views about culture that are put forward by mainstream management writers. They stress the ways in which these cultural assumptions can stifle dissent management and reproduce propaganda and ideology. They suggest that organizations do not have a single culture and cultural engineering may not reflect the interests of all stakeholders within an organization.
Parker (2000) has suggested that many of the assumptions of those putting forward theories of organizational culture are not new. They reflect a long-standing tension between cultural and structural (or informal and formal) versions of what organizations are. Further, it is reasonable to suggest that complex organizations might have many cultures, and that such sub-cultures might overlap and contradict each other. The neat typologies of cultural forms found in textbooks rarely acknowledge such complexities, or the various economic contradictions that exist in capitalist organizations.
Among the strongest and widely recognized writers on corporate culture with a long list of articles on leadership, culture, gender and their intersection is Linda Smircich, as a part of the of critical management studies, she criticises theories that attempt to categorize or 'pigeonhole' organizational culture. She uses the metaphor of a plant root to represent culture, describing that it drives organizations rather than vice versa. Organizations are the product of organizational culture, we are unaware of how it shapes behavior and interaction (also recognized through Scheins (2002) underlying assumptions) and so how can we categorize it and define what it is?
source : http://www.en-wikipedia.org

Organizational Development

ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
            Organization development (OD) is a deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness or efficiency. OD theorists and practitioners define it in various ways. Its multiplicity of definition reflects the complexity of the discipline and is responsible for its lack of understanding. For example, Vasudevan has referred to OD being about promoting organizational readiness to meet change , and it has been said that OD is a systemic learning and development strategy intended to change the basics of beliefs, attitudes and relevance of values, and structure of the current organization to bettter absorb disruptive technologies, shrinking or exploding market opportunities and ensuing challenges and chaos. It is worth understanding what OD is not. It not training, personal development, team development, HRD (human resource development), L&D (learning and development) or a part of HR although it is often mistakenly understood as some or all of these. OD interventions are about change so involve people - but OD also develops processes, systems and structures. The primary purpose of OD is to develop the organization, not to train or develop the staff.
            Organization development is an ongoing, systematic process of implementing effective organizational change. OD is known as both a field of science focused on understanding and managing organizational change and as a field of scientific study and inquiry. It is interdisciplinary in nature and draws on sociology, psychology, and theories of motivation, learning, and personality. Although behavioral science has provided the basic foundation for the study and practice of OD, new and emerging fields of study have made their presence felt. Experts in systems thinking and organizational learning, structure of intuition in decision making, and coaching (to name a few) whose perspective is not steeped in just the behavioral sciences, but a much more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach, have emerged as OD catalysts or tools.
Organization development is a growing field that is responsive to many new approaches.
History
Kurt Lewin (1898–1947) is widely recognized as the founding father of OD, although he died before the concept became current in the mid-1950s. From Lewin came the ideas of group dynamics and action research which underpin the basic OD process as well as providing its collaborative consultant/client ethos. Institutionally, Lewin founded the "Research Center for Group Dynamics" (RCGD) atMIT, which moved to Michigan after his death. RCGD colleagues were among those who founded the National Training Laboratories(NTL), from which the T-groups and group-based OD emerged.
Kurt Lewin played a key role in the evolution of organization development as it is known today. As early as World War II, Lewin experimented with a collaborative change process (involving himself as consultant and a client group) based on a three-step process of planning, taking action, and measuring results. This was the forerunner of action research, an important element of OD, which will be discussed later. Lewin then participated in the beginnings of laboratory training, or T-groups, and, after his death in 1947, his close associates helped to develop survey-research methods at the University of Michigan. These procedures became important parts of OD as developments in this field continued at the National Training Laboratories and in growing numbers of universities and private consulting firms across the country. Two of the leading universities offering doctoral level degrees in OD are Benedictine University and the Fielding Graduate University.
Douglas McGregor and Richard Beckhard while "consulting together at General Mills in the 1950s, the two coined the term organization development (OD) to describe an innovative bottoms-up change effort that fit no traditional consulting categories" (Weisbord, 1987, p. 112).
The failure of off-site laboratory training to live up to its early promise was one of the important forces stimulating the development of OD. Laboratory training is learning from a person's "here and now" experience as a member of an ongoing training group. Such groups usually meet without a specific agenda. Their purpose is for the members to learn about themselves from their spontaneous "here and now" responses to an ambiguous hypothetical situation. Problems of  leadership, structure, status, communication, and self-serving behavior typically arise in such a group. The members have an opportunity to learn something about themselves and to practice such skills as listening, observing others, and functioning as effective group members.
As formerly practiced (and occasionally still practiced for special purposes), laboratory training was conducted in "stranger groups," or groups composed of individuals from different organizations, situations, and backgrounds. A major difficulty developed, however, in transferring knowledge gained from these "stranger labs" to the actual situation "back home". This required a transfer between two different cultures, the relatively safe and protected environment of the T-group (or training group) and the give-and-take of the organizational environment with its traditional values. This led the early pioneers in this type of learning to begin to apply it to "family groups" — that is, groups located within an organization. From this shift in the locale of the training site and the realization that culture was an important factor in influencing group members (along with some other developments in the behavioral sciences) emerged the concept of organization development. Organization development.
Core Values
Underlying Organization Development are humanistic values. Margulies and Raia (1972) articulated the humanistic values of OD as follows:
1.     Providing opportunities for people to function as human beings rather than as resources in the productive process.
2.     Providing opportunities for each organization member, as well as for the organization itself, to develop to his full potential.
3.     Seeking to increase the effectiveness of the organization in terms of all of its goals.
4.     Attempting to create an environment in which it is possible to find exciting and challenging work.
5.     Providing opportunities for people in organizations to influence the way in which they relate to work, the organization, and the environment.
6.     Treating each human being as a person with a complex set of needs, all of which are important in his work and in his life.
==== Objective of OD ====:
According to somil aseeja, the objective of ob is:
1.     To increase the level of inter-personal trust among employees.
2.     To increase employee's level of satisfaction and commitment.
3.     To confront the problem instead of neglecting them.
4.     To effectively manage conflict.
5.     To increase cooperation among the employees.
6.     To increase the organization problem solving.
Change agent
A change agent in the sense used here is not a technical expert skilled in such functional areas as accounting, production, or finance. The change agent is a behavioral scientist who knows how to get people in an organization involved in solving their own problems. A change agent's main strength is a comprehensive knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number of intervention techniques (to be discussed later). The change agent can be either external or internal to the organization. An internal change agent is usually a staff person who has expertise in the behavioral sciences and in the intervention technology of OD. Beckhard reports several cases in which line people have been trained in OD and have returned to their organizations to engage in successful change assignments. In the natural evolution of change mechanisms in organizations, this would seem to approach the ideal arrangement. Qualified change agents can be found on some university faculties, or they may be private consultants associated with such organizations as the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (Washington, D.C.) University Associates (San Diego, California), the Human Systems Intervention graduate program in the Department of Applied Human Sciences (Concordia University, Montreal, Canada), Navitus (Pvt) Ltd (Pakistan), MaxFoster Global and similar organizations.
The change agent may be a staff or line member of the organization who is schooled in OD theory and technique. In such a case, the "contractual relationship" is an in-house agreement that should probably be explicit with respect to all of the conditions involved except the fee.
Sponsoring organization
The initiative for OD programs often comes from an organization that has a problem or anticipates facing a problem. This means that top management or someone authorized by top management is aware that a problem exists and has decided to seek help in solving it. There is a direct analogy here to the practice of psychotherapy: The client or patient must actively seek help in finding a solution to his problems. This indicates a willingness on the part of the client organization to accept help and assures the organization that management is actively concerned.
Applied behavioral science
One of the outstanding characteristics of OD that distinguishes it from most other improvement programs is that it is based on a "helping relationship." Some believe that the change agent is not a physician to the organization's ills; that s/he does not examine the "patient," make a diagnosis, and write a prescription. Nor does she try to teach organizational members a new inventory of knowledge which they then transfer to the job situation. Using theory and methods drawn from such behavioral sciences as industrial/organizational psychology, industrial sociology, communication, cultural anthropology, administrative theory, organizational behavior, economics, and political science, the change agent's main function is to help the organization define and solve its own problems. The basic method used is known as action research. This approach, which is described in detail later, consists of a preliminary diagnosis, collecting data, feedback of the data to the client, data exploration by the client group, action planning based on the data, and taking action.
Systems context
OD deals with a total system — the organization as a whole, including its relevant environment — or with a subsystem or systems — departments or work groups — in the context of the total system. Parts of systems, for example, individuals, cliques, structures, norms, values, and products are not considered in isolation; the principle of interdependency, that is, that change in one part of a system affects the other parts, is fully recognized. Thus, OD interventions focus on the total culture and cultural processes of organizations. The focus is also on groups, since the relevant behavior of individuals in organizations and groups is generally a product of group influences rather than personality.
Improved organizational performance
The objective of OD is to improve the organization's capacity to handle its internal and external functioning and relationships. This would include such things as improved interpersonal and group processes, more effective communication, enhanced ability to cope with organizational problems of all kinds, more effective decision processes, more appropriate leadership style, improved skill in dealing with destructive conflict, and higher levels of trust and cooperation among organizational members. These objectives stem from a value system based on an optimistic view of the nature of man — that man in a supportive environment is capable of achieving higher levels of development and accomplishment. Essential to organization development and effectiveness is the scientific method — inquiry, a rigorous search for causes, experimental testing of hypotheses, and review of results.
Organizational self-renewal
The ultimate aim of OD practitioners is to "work themselves out of a job" by leaving the client organization with a set of tools, behaviors, attitudes, and an action plan with which to monitor its own state of health and to take corrective steps toward its own renewal and development. This is consistent with the systems concept of feedback as a regulatory and corrective mechanism.
Understanding organizations
Weisbord presents a six-box model for understanding organization:
1.     Purposes: The organization members are clear about the organization's mission and purpose and goal agreements, whether people support the organization' purpose.
2.     Structure: How is the organization's work divided up? The question is whether there is an adequate fit between the purpose and the internal structure.
3.     Relationship: Between individuals, between units or departments that perform different tasks, and between the people and requirements of their jobs.
4.     Rewards: The consultant should diagnose the similarities between what the organization formally rewarded or punished members for.
5.     Leadership: Is to watch for blips among the other boxes and maintain balance among them.
6.     Helpful mechanism: Is a helpful organization that must attend to in order to survive which as planning, control, budgeting, and other information systems that help organization member accomplish.
Modern development
In recent years, serious questioning has emerged about the relevance of OD to managing change in modern organizations. The need for "reinventing" the field has become a topic that even some of its "founding fathers" are discussing critically.
With this call for reinvention and change, scholars have begun to examine organization development from an emotion-based standpoint. For example, deKlerk (2007)  writes about how emotional trauma can negatively affect performance. Due to downsizing, outsourcing, mergers, restructuring, continual changes, invasions of privacy, harassment, and abuses of power, many employees experience the emotions of aggression, anxiety, apprehension, cynicism, and fear, which can lead to performance decreases. deKlerk (2007) suggests that in order to heal the trauma and increase performance, O.D. practitioners must acknowledge the existence of the trauma, provide a safe place for employees to discuss their feelings, symbolize the trauma and put it into perspective, and then allow for and deal with the emotional responses. One method of achieving this is by having employees draw pictures of what they feel about the situation, and then having them explain their drawings with each other. Drawing pictures is beneficial because it allows employees to express emotions they normally would not be able to put into words. Also, drawings often prompt active participation in the activity, as everyone is required to draw a picture and then discuss its meaning.
The use of new technologies combined with globalization has also shifted the field of organization development. Roland Sullivan (2005) defined Organization Development with participants at the 1st Organization Development Conference for Asia in Dubai-2005 as "Organization Development is a transformative leap to a desired vision where strategies and systems align, in the light of local culture with an innovative and authentic leadership style using the support of high tech tools.
Action research
Wendell L French and Cecil Bell defined organization development (OD) at one point as "organization improvement through action research". If one idea can be said to summarize OD's underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin and later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of action".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb                                       /c/c5/Systems Model of Actions Research-Process.jpg/450px-                                          Systems Model of Actions-Research Process.jpg
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.22wmf3/skins/common/image/magnify-clip.png

Figure 1: Systems Model of Action-Research Process
Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps:
"Unfreezing": Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change.
"Changing": The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested.
"Refreezing": Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted.
Figure 1 summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through action research. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem diagnosis.
The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage includes actions relating to learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning and executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at this stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning to bring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with change objectives. Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and members of the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage.
The third stage of action research is the output, or results, phase. This stage includes actual changes in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can be made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B (see Figure 1). Major adjustments and reevaluations would return the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in the program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general model of change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problem awareness. The action stage is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of behavior in an effort to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There is inevitable overlap between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous process). The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's repertoire of problem-solving behavior.
Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data are not simply returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint sessions, and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and ranking specific problems, in devising methods for finding their real causes, and in developing plans for coping with them realistically and practically. Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as in the laboratory, is nevertheless an integral part of the process. Action research also sets in motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the client's system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal.
Important figures :
•         Chris Argyris
•         Richard Beckhard
•         Robert R. Blake
•         Louis L. Carter
•         David Cooperrider
•         W. Edwards Deming
•         Fred Emery
•         Charles Handy
•         Elliott Jaques
•         Kurt Lewin
•         Rensis Likert
•         Jane Mouton
•         Derek S. Pugh
•         William J. Rothwell
•         Edgar Schein
•         Donald Schon
•         Peter Senge
•         Herbert Shepard
•         Eric Trist
•         Margaret J. Wheatley
•         Pulin Garg
•         Ichak Adizes

OD interventions
"Interventions" are principal learning processes in the "action" stage (see Figure 1) of organization development. Interventions are structured activities used individually or in combination by the members of a client system to improve their social or task performance. They may be introduced by a change agent as part of an improvement program, or they may be used by the client following a program to check on the state of the organization's health, or to effect necessary changes in its own behavior. "Structured activities" mean such diverse procedures as experiential exercises, questionnaires, attitude surveys, interviews, relevant group discussions, and even lunchtime meetings between the change agent and a member of the client organization. Every action that influences an organization's improvement program in a change agent-client system relationship can be said to be an intervention.
There are many possible intervention strategies from which to choose. Several assumptions about the nature and functioning oforganizations are made in the choice of a particular strategy. Beckhard lists six such assumptions:
1.     The basic building blocks of an organization are groups (teams). Therefore, the basic units of change are groups, not individuals.
2.     An always relevant change goal is the reduction of inappropriate competition between parts of the organization and the development of a more collaborative condition.
3.     Decision making in a healthy organization is located where the information sources are, rather than in a particular role or level of hierarchy.
4.     Organizations, subunits of organizations, and individuals continuously manage their affairs against goals. Controls are interim measurements, not the basis of managerial strategy.
5.     One goal of a healthy organization is to develop generally open communication, mutual trust, and confidence between and across levels.
6.     People support what they help create. People affected by a change must be allowed active participation and a sense of ownership in the planning and conduct of the change.
Interventions range from those designed to improve the effectiveness of individuals through those designed to deal with teams and groups, intergroup relations, and the total organization. There are interventions that focus on task issues (what people do), and those that focus on process issues (how people go about doing it). Finally, interventions may be roughly classified according to which change mechanism they tend to emphasize: for example, feedback, awareness of changing cultural norms, interaction and communication,conflict, and education through either new knowledge or skill practice.]
One of the most difficult tasks confronting the change agent is to help create in the client system a safe climate for learning and change. In a favorable climate, human learning builds on itself and continues indefinitely during man's lifetime. Out of new behavior, new dilemmas and problems emerge as the spiral continues upward to new levels. In an unfavorable climate, in contrast, learning is far less certain, and in an atmosphere of psychological threat, it often stops altogether. Unfreezing old ways can be inhibited in organizations because the climate makes employees feel that it is inappropriate to reveal true feelings, even though such revelations could be constructive. In an inhibited atmosphere, therefore, necessary feedback is not available. Also, trying out new ways may be viewed as risky because it violates established norms. Such an organization may also be constrained because of the law of systems: If one part changes, other parts will become involved. Hence, it is easier to maintain the status quo. Hierarchical authority, specialization, span of control, and other characteristics of formal systems also discourage experimentation.
The change agent must address himself to all of these hazards and obstacles. Some of the things which will help him are:
1.     A real need in the client system to change
2.     Genuine support from management
3.     Setting a personal example: listening, supporting behavior
4.     A sound background in the behavioral sciences
5.     A working knowledge of systems theory
6.     A belief in man as a rational, self-educating being fully capable of learning better ways to do things.
A few examples of interventions include team building, coaching, Large Group Interventions, mentoring, performance appraisal, downsizing, TQM, and leadership development.
source : http://www.en-wikipedia.org