Essay
An organisation is a complex system, which, internally, is composed of interrelated and interdependent parts, and externally, is affected by certain factors (or it may be the other way around-it is the organisation that has an impact on external factors). (Accel-Team, 2003) Further, an organisation is a group of people that is organized so as to achieve a common goal or set goals. (McNamara, 1999)
Ideally, there are certain features that an organisation considers and establishes in relation to its goals, features which may either be explicit (deliberate and recognized) and implicit (operating unrecognized): vision, mission, values, strategic goals, strategies, and systems and processes that are aligned with the achievement of goals. (McNamara, 1999)
Vision pertains to the image formed in the minds of the organisation’s members-images on how the organisation should be working and how things appear when everything is going smoothly in the organisation. (McNamara, 1999)
Mission, on the other hand, refers to the overall purpose of the organisation, with which the operations of the organisation are based. (McNamara, 1999)
As for the values, these refer to the priorities in the nature of how the organisation carry out its activities, and more importantly, values constitute the personality or the culture of an organisation. (McNamara, 1999)
Moreover, strategic goals refer to the several overall accomplishments that organisation members try to achieve as they work toward their mission, while strategies are the overall general approaches that organisations usually follow to reach their goals. (McNamara, 1999)
Finally, an organization has subsystems, like departments, programs, divisions, teams, which are usually characterised by plans, policies and procedures; “subsystems” that have unique duties of their own in the organisation, and they work, alongside other subsystems, to achieve the common, overall goals of the organisation in their specified ways or nature of work. (McNamara, 1999)
Accordingly, it is useful to make a distinction between the basic nature of an organisation and the operating mechanisms that implement and reinforce this basic structure. (Lorsch, 1970, p. 1) Central issues in the organisation, such as the division and assignment of work among positions, groups, departments, divisions, etc., and the achievement of coordination essential in accomplishing the total organisational objectives are included in the design of the basic structure of an organisation. (Lorsch, 1970) Lorsch (1970) further discussed: “Choices made about these issues are usually publicised in organisation charts and job descriptions. If we recognise that behaviour in an organisation is influenced by a system of variables (technical, individual, social and organisational inputs), it is obvious that such formal documents are only one method of signalling to individuals what behaviour is expected of them. Nevertheless, this method is important because it is so widely used by managers to define and communicate their expectations of other organisation members.” (p. 1)
On the other hand, operating mechanisms refer to structural variables an organisation can use to indicate to their members what is expected of them, to motivate them in performing his or her assigned task in achieving organisation’s goals, and to encourage them to participate in joint activities, which include the control procedures, information systems, reward and appraisal systems, standardised rules and procedures, and spatial arrangements. (Lorsch, 1970, pp. 1-2)
Consequently, there are certain approaches that have been advance through the years in relation to the structural design of an organisation, which include the conventional approach and the systemic approach. (Lorsch, 1970)
Under the conventional approach are ideas mostly developed by a group of organisational theorists known as the classicists, which include theorists like Fayol, Gulick, Urwick, and Mooney. (Lorsch, 1970, p. 2) Basically, ideas yielded by these theorists are based on the assumption that the motivating factor for men to do as they are directed is money. (Lorsch, 1970) With regard to work division, most of the classical theorists suggested the division of work by function, with the exception of Gulick, who suggested that the work of an organisation can be divided on several bases: by function, by product, by territory, by time. (Lorsch, 1970) In addition, these writers emphasised economic and technical efficiency, and the only human variable that was given attention was the limited intellectual capacity of an individual; to cope up with this limitation, the division of labour was promoted. (Lorsch, 1970) In addition, these writers said coordination among members of an organisation was not a major problem: “Work was to be divided so that the sub-goals of various units would add up to the overall organizational goals. Any remaining coordinating issues would be handled through the management hierarchy. Since people followed the direction of their superiors, the management hierarchy was the only coordinating device necessary.” (p. 2)
However, even though this approach has been widely used, it has harsh limitations: it provides little help in designing a task with intrinsic motivation; it is of limited value in dealing with the multiple levels of division of work among large corporations; and managers have become more aware that the management hierarchy is not sufficient as a mechanism to achieve the coordination required in an organisation since the goals of individuals and units do not automatically add up to the total goals of the organisation. (Lorsch, 1970, pp. 2-3)
Due to these shortcomings, other organisational theorists, which came to know as behavioural scientists, began conducting research that considers the motivational and collaborative issues left unattended by classical theorists. In lieu of this development, the behavioural scientists said the individual is motivated by self-actualization, which follows that he will look for more complicated and engaging jobs, and this factor must be taken into account in the division of work. (Lorsch, 1970) Also, the individual is motivated by social needs, thus, it is important to form an organisation into a structure where participation of each individual belonging to a unified work group in decision-making is the accepted norm. (Lorsch, 1970, p. 3)
In relation to the systemic approach to the design of organisational structure, the two studies earlier advanced towards these realms are that of Burns and Stalker (1960) and Woodward (1965). According to Burns and Stalker (1960), there was more reliance on formal rules and procedures, decisions were made at the higher levels of the organisation, and the spans of supervisory control were narrow in the stable industry. Woodward (1965), on the other hand, said that in the more dynamic industry, spans of supervisory control were wider, less attention was paid to formal procedures, and more decisions were reached at the lower levels of the organisation. However, even though these studies consider the structure of an organisation as one variable system that affects behaviour in organisations, they do not provide a thorough conceptual framework essential for analysing and solving structural design problems. (Lorsch, 1970)
In 1990s, management studies came to view organizations from a systems perspective due to tremendous changes facing organizations and how they operate, and this new perspective brought about major changes in the studies of and approaches to organizations. (McNamara, 1999) A system, accordingly, is a set of parts or subsystems joined together to accomplish an overall goal, which has input, processes, outputs and outcomes, and has an ongoing feedback among these different parts of parts; thus, when one part of the system is removed, the nature of the system is changed. (McNamara, 1999)
In relation, one of the significant breakthroughs in understanding the complex world of systems is the systems theory. (McNamara, 1999) The systems theory is the “trans-disciplinary study of the abstract organization of phenomena, independent of their substance, type, or spatial or temporal scale of existence, [which] investigates both the principles common to all entities and the models [that] can be used to describe them.” (Heylighen and Joslyn, 1992) It was proposed in the 1940s by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, who stressed out that real systems continuously evolves since they interact with and are open to their environment, thus acquiring qualitatively new properties through emergence, and was supplemented by William Ross Ashby in the 1950s. (Heylighen and Joslyn, 1992) Systems theory focuses on the arrangement of and relations between parts that connect them into a whole, rather than reducing an entity into parts or elements. (Heylighen and Joslyn, 1992)
The developments of systems theory are varied, which includes conceptual foundations and philosophy, mathematical modeling and information theory, and practical applications. (Heylighen and Joslyn, 1992) The application of this theory is called systems analysis, which aims to identify the possible courses of action, together with their risks, costs and benefits; also, it applies systems principles to facilitate decision-making with regards to problems of identifying, reconstructing, optimising, and controlling a system (usually a socio-technical organization), at the same time considering multiple objectives, constraints and resources. (McNamara 1999, and Heylighen and Joslyn 1992)
Accordingly, the systems theory brought a new perspective for managers to understand patterns and events in their organisations. In the past, managers typically focus on one part, then afterwards moves to another part to focus upon; thus, the catch was, managers often create generalisations for the whole organisation, but fails to realise that even though an organisation may have a department that can very well operate independently, these departments may not integrate well together, which in turn, may result to major problems for the organisation. (McNamara, 1999) But with the systems theory, more managers becomes aware of the various parts of an organisation, in particular, the interrelations of the parts, they now give more attention to ongoing matters and feedbacks, they analyse problems through the recognition of larger patterns of organisations and not the separate pieces of the organisation, they focus on want they want from their organisations, and finally, they concentrate on structures that provoke behaviours, which determine events, rather than reacting to events. (McNamara, 1999)
However, at present, tools and communication technologies are definitely shaping organisations. (Harris, 1993) Since technology is a foundation of organisational activity, and information is the instrument for reducing uncertainty in an organisation, having an understanding on the impact of the new communication and information technology is therefore essential. (Harris, 1993)
Accordingly, there are three phases in the introduction of machines into organisations: mechanisation, automation and information technology. (Harris, 1993)
We are witnessing mechanisation when an individual operates a machine that is substituted for the mechanical capabilities of an individual; the greater the technological complexity, the lower the human input. (Harris, 1993, p. 462) When a technology is being developed into a more sophisticated technology, where machines are capable of self-regulation and acts as substitutes for an employee’s sensory mechanisms, automation occurs. (Harris, 1993, p. 462; Laufer, 1984, p. 11) Harris (1993) further discussed: “there is a synergistic relationship between people and machines…with mechanization, employees either facilitate the machine's operation (e.g., operators, maintenance) or coordinate the people/machine process (e.g., managers, supervisors). Second, as the technology advanced to create automated machines, people changed from merely being an extension of the machine to managing the machines (computer-aided manufacturing [CAM]). In some cases, the machines relieved individuals of laborious tasks (e.g., repetitive functions -- peeling potatoes; meticulous detail work -- bad potatoes). In other cases, machines have taken over because they do a better job (e.g., printers for computers, detail work).” (p. 463)
On the other hand, Robey (1991) said information processing is a fundamental element of all organizational activity. However, since all parts of modern organisations are affected by the new technologies, the use of mediated communication techniques has had a deep impact in an organisation. (Harris, 1993) Information technologies are systems that can process, transfer, store, analyse and communicate information, and these include all types of computing and communications hardware and software (Davis & Olson, 1985, p. 29; Harris, 1993). “As individuals utilize the new communication technologies, the richness of the media seems to have an impact of individual satisfaction.” (Harris, 1993, p. 464) However, the new technologies, accordingly, will not replace media richness since it stays as an important element in communication satisfaction. (Harris, 1993) Media richness refers to "the speed of feedback permitted by the medium, the number and types of sensory channels utilized by the medium, the perceived personalities of the source when communicating over the medium, and the richness of language used with the medium" (Komsky, 1991, p. 314; Harris, 1993, p. 464). Harris further discussed: “the concept of richness is important because predictions are that people enjoy greater communication satisfaction with a richer media. So, richness is one means for organizing our understanding of the new communication technologies.” (Harris, 1993, p. 464)
In relation, there are five types of information systems: communication, operational, decision support, and interorganisational. (Harris, 1993, p. 474) “Each of these provides an organization with important opportunities for growth. With the transnational nature of most corporations, the new technology will continue to be a major force.” (Harris, 1993, p. 474)
To supplement human communication, the communication systems are designed. (Harris, 1993) On the other hand, the operational systems are designed to help with the structural aspects of work; through these systems, routine activities can be examined to identify the source of inefficiencies. (Harris, 1993) Also, since procedures have become standardised through the operational systems, a great deal of time and effort can be reduced. (Harris, 1993) However, overdependence on operational systems may lead to a significant amount of depersonalisation in the organisation. (Robey, 1991; Harris, 1993) Now, control systems are used for data collection and entry, and also, they are used to monitor and evaluate organisational performance. (Harris, 1993) While decision support systems, on the other hand, operate as extensions of the planning and decision-making processes; these kinds of systems range from relatively simple data support systems to complex forms of expert systems. (Harris, 1993, p. 468) However, due to the complexity of managerial decision making, decision support systems have limited application. (Luconi, Malone, & Scott-Morton, 1984; Harris, 1993). Further, these systems can be troublesome and worse, can lead to a loss of productivity since it intends to take the place of decision making, which is a very complex thing. (Kaye & Sutton, 1985; Harris, 1993) Finally, interorganisational systems are information systems that are designed to link different organisations. (Harris, 1993) Through the cooperation with the design and use of interorganisational systems, organisations have been able to increase their competitive advantage. (Johnston & Vitale, 1988; Harris, 1993)
However, with these technological advancements, there are also arguments that have been raised concerning their impacts. Some of the issues include access to information (because of new technologies, access to information, which was only available to top-level or middle managers before, was increased that decision-making can now be made by those close to the situation), power and relationships (a major shift of power has occurred because of the impact of technology), and impact on users (like isolation, decreased motivation, and uncertainty). (Harris, 1993)
References:
Accel-Team. (2003). The Organization as a System. In Accel-Team.com. Available at: [http://www.accelteam.com/business_process/systems_analysis_05. html]. Accessed: [02/02/04].
Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.
Davis G. B., & Olson M. H. (1985). Management information systems: Conceptual foundations ( 2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harris, Thomas E. (1993). Applied Organizational Communication: Perspectives, Principles, and Pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heylighen, Francis and Joslyn, Cliff. (1992). What is Systems Theory? In Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnston H. R., & Vitale M. R. ( 1988). Creating competitive advantage with interorganizational information systems. In MIS Quarterly, 12, pp. 153 - 166 .
Kaye A. R., & Sutton M. J. D. ( 1985). "Productivity and quality of working life for office principles and implications for office automation". In Office: Technology and People, 2, pp. 267 - 286 .
Komsky S. H. ( 1991). "A profile of users of electronic mail in a university". In Management Communication Quarterly, 4, pp. 310 - 340 .
Lorsch, Jay W. (1970). Introduction to the Structural Design of Organizations. In Dalton, G. W., Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (eds), Organizational Structure and Design. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.
Luconi F. L., & Malone T. W., & Scott-Morton M. S. (1984). Expert systemsand expert support systems: The next challenge for management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McNamara, Carter. (1999). Basic Definition of Organization. In Management Assistance Programs (MAP) for Nonprofits. Available at: [http://www.mapnp.org/library/org_thry/org_defn.htm]. Accessed: [02/02/04].
McNamara, Carter. (1999). Thinking About Organizations as Systems. In Management Assistance Programs (MAP) for Nonprofits. Available at: [http://www.mapnp.org/library/org_thry/org_sytm.htm]. Accessed: [03/02/04].
Robey D. ( 1991). Designing organizations ( 3rd ed.). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Woodward, Joan. (1965). Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
News from the Web
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment