Critical Review
Name:
Institution:
Course:
Tutor:
Date:
Chapter 1: Introduction to organizational theory
Organizations can be defined as entities that are purposeful and goal oriented, however in including goals as part of the definition of an organisation means that there is consensus among members of the organization, which may not always be the case. In addition, the goals of the most powerful members or groups of the organization may be held in a more privileged position compared to those of the less powerful members (Jones, 2010 p 48). Organizational theory is important in our everyday lives since it influences our understanding of experiences within organizations and how we behave within those organizations (Burrell, 2003, p529). The perspectives that are taken in organizational theory should be keenly considered since they determine how people will understand organizations or how they will behave within their contexts. In understanding organizational theory, it is always necessary to make some philosophical assumptions, which act as a guidance tool; however, these assumptions are usually full of contentions since they usually do not have any evidence to support them.
Chapter 2: Modernist organizational theory: Back into the future
Modernist organizational theory argues that chaos and disorders among human beings can be overcome through human will and intentions, this means that the order can be maintained by creation of systems, bureaucracies and methods of management that aim at restoring order in a disorderly world. In understanding modernist organizational theory, it is important to look at the intellectual environment and organisations as part of systems; these can be looked at in two different ways. One of the ways is looking at the scientific activities that surround them which include development of the organizational theory; the second way is looking at the organizations as complex systems. Modernist organizational theory is more concerned about bureaucracy as a form of organizational and whether it is an agent of disorder and chaos in the world or it works to restore order in the world. Bureaucracy has been adopted in most of the organizations since the beginning of the 20th century as a means for efficient and effective organisations.
Neo-modernist organizational theory: putting people first
The modernist approach has been overtaken by the neo modernist approach, which puts the welfare of the people at the centre of the organization. The neo modernist organizational theory uses insight and techniques of the social sciences to build up an organizational and managerial presumption that is usable in problems connected with authority in organizational context. The neo modernist organizational theory pays special attention to the values and beliefs that individuals have and how they shape their experiences within organizations (Kets de Vries, 2004, p194). In addition, it also concentrates on how individual values and beliefs are shaped by their experiences in organizations, this leads to organizational culture and ways in which people’s needs can be woven in to those of organizations. This theory has two perspectives on how organizations are usually structured; the first perspective is where the management needs to be sensitive to the needs of the employees in order to create a conducive environment for all stakeholders of the organization. The second perspective is for the management of the organization to create a democratic space, which empowers all stakeholders in the organization (Westenholz, 2003, p110; Johnson, 2006).
Chapter 6: post modernism as a philosophy: the ultimate challenge to organizational theory?
Post modernism as a philosophy aims to disprove the modernist assumption that the world can be understood objectively by disproving the proposition that it is feasible to come up with a rational and generally applicable basis to scientific inquiry that can explain the universe from an objective point of view (Thompson, 2003, p185). Postmodernism has had the greatest impact on the organizational culture as it affects the values and beliefs of the stakeholders of the organizations.
Post modernism as a philosophy has expanded my knowledge on the thoughts of thinkers such as Jacques Derida; however, more explanation is needed on the basis of their critique of the modernist organizational theory.
Chapter 7: Reflective Organizational theory: symbols, meanings and interpretations
Reflective organizational theory emphasises on the way individuals give the happenings in the environment meaning and their ability to understand and reflect on the complexity of the organizations in which they work. In explaining how individuals interact with their environment, reflective organizational theory uses two approaches; they are symbolic interaction and phenomenology (Frenkel, 2003, p184). Symbolic interaction aims to explain how individuals can come together to achieve a certain purpose while phenomenology aims at describing and understanding of everyday activities of members in an organizations without using any past experiences or theories (Czarniawska and Sköldberg, 2003, p345; Jones, 2003, p87).
This chapter has shed light on new ways in which activities within an organisation can be understood without using any theories or experiences. An area that needs more explanation is the relationship between the two perspectives of reflective organisational theory; that is the link between symbolic interaction and phenomenology.
The evolution of management as reflected through the lens of modernist organizational theory
This chapter tries to understand managers as an organizational group that is different from management. Management has been depicted as having evolved during the last stages of industrial revolution; this evolution was accelerated by two related process that were taking place in industries at that time and they include delegation of responsibilities that were previously executed by owners to managers and expropriation by managers of the responsibilities that were previously performed by the employees. In this chapter, managers have been seen as either individuals who pursue the interests of the shareholders or their own self-interests (Child, 2005, p65).
This chapter has provided me with an insight on how the field of management evolved and how sometimes the interests of managers conflict with those of the shareholders. However, with the change in organizational structure role of managers has changed, which has not been explained in this chapter.
What I learnt from the course, my contributions and how the experience will shape my learning outcomes in the coming months
The course in organizational theory has helped me understand how organizations developed and how they run. The modernist organizational theory has enabled me understand how organizations were run in the 20th century through bureaucracies. The course has further broadened my knowledge in more recent ways of understanding organizations such as the neo modernist organizational theory that is concerned with the welfare of all the stakeholders of the organisations before organizational gains. In the context of neo modernist theory, control in organizations has been illuminated in terms of differentiating between formal and informal control and the types of formal control. Postmodernism organizational theory has helped in understanding two approaches that can be used in understanding organizations (Ritti & Levy, 2009, p 116). The first approach is where the term ‘postmodernism’ refers to a time in history that was characterized by vibrancy in organizations therefore having an effect on how organizations should be designed and run; the second approach refers to postmodernism as philosophical way of thinking. The chapter on postmodernism as a philosophy helps in understanding some theoretical perspectives that can be used in making sense of the events that happen in the world. In addition, this chapter sheds some light on the history and development of postmodernism theories and how it is practically impossible to develop an objective and generally accepted view of the world. Chapter 7 which deals with reflective organizational theory explains in details how individuals make sense of the world around them; in explaining this, the theory uses symbolic interaction which attempts to explain how people make sense of things around them and phenomenology which attempts to understand the world without the use of any theories or previous experiences. The course has also enabled me learn on managers and how they run the organisations, for instance, managers may run organizations for their own selfish benefits or for the benefit of shareholders.
In learning organizational theory, my contribution was asking questions that would help the students get better under of the subject matter of the course. In addition, I participated in group discussions as well as looking for other materials that would supplement what the teacher taught in class.
Learning the course will help me in the next courses that will touch on organizations since I will have some background information on how organizations are run. In addition, information gained from learning about how the various methods of managing organizations evolved up to the current ones will help me identify with ease the various methods that specific organizations use. Learning about managers and how they run organizations will also enable me to identify the best managerial tactics for successful organizations.
References
Burrell, G. (2003) ‘The future of organizational theory: Prospects and limitations’, in H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 525–535
Child, J. (2005) Organization: Contemporary Principles and Practice, Oxford: Blackwell.
Czarniawska, B. and Sköldberg, K. (2003) ‘Tales of organizing: Symbolism and narration in management studies’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds), The Northern Lights –Organization Theory in Scandinavia, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Frenkel, S.J. (2003) ‘The embedded character of workplace relations’, Work and Occupations 30(2):135–153.
Johnson, P. (2006) ‘Whence democracy? A review and critique of the conceptual dimensions and implications of the business case for organizational democracy’, Organization 13(2):245–274.
Jones, G. R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Jones, M. (2003) On Studying Organisational Symbolism, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2004) ‘Organizations on the couch: A clinical perspective on organizational dynamics’, European Management Journal 22(2):183–200.
Ritti, R. R., & Levy, S. (2009). The Ropes to Skip and the Ropes to Know: Studies in Organizational Theory and Behavior. John Wiley & Sons.
Thompson, P. (2003) Postmodernism-Fatal Distraction? Postmodernism and Organizations, J. Hassard and M. Parker (eds), London: Sage, pp. 181–204
Westenholz, A. (2003). ‘Organizational citizens – Unionized wage earners, participative management and beyond’, in B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (eds), The Northern Lights –Organization Theory in Scandinavia, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press
