Table of Contents
Organization theory aims to reveal the most effective practices and approaches that can stir organizations towards achieving their respective goals and objectives. Over the years, various researchers have come up with specific concepts and theories that underline the recommended dynamics which can propel organizations to an anticipated height of performance. Nevertheless, the cohesion amongst the working team is considered a crucial factor that enhances every foreseen operation regardless of the attached circumstances. Hence, it can be asserted that in as much as the theories encompassed with an organizational setup are significant, the participation of all the involved parties in management and other operative departments cannot be overlooked. The three paradigms that split the organization theory expose both the conflicting and merging forces which makes the organization theory to exceptional. The three include; symbolic interpretive, modernist, and the postmodern (Hatch 2011). Just to mention, researches in all the three perspectives of organization theory embraced unique viewpoints about the sustainability of an organization. The researchers reflected upon both the current issues affecting the growth and development of an organization and the common dynamics that affect the commercial trends in any Eco-social setup. Although all the three are well-thought-out to be influential in shaping the behaviours of both the organizational leaders and the workers, they can be differentiated by certain conceptual information that elevates a clear gap of dissimilarity.
The modernist perspective acknowledges the importance of an organization in a competitive business platform. It states that organizations are factually real units operating in an actual world. According to the researchers under this paradigm, organizations are sustained by a series of unifying theories that divulge the reasons why people might want to work together towards achieving common goals. However, they appreciate the role of culture in management and foundation of an organization. The modernist approach brings to light how cultural practices and interventions can either motivate the workers or demotivate them depending on their irrespective cultural beliefs and backgrounds (Lockn 2003, p. 102).
We can do it today.
This paradigm exposes the structural development of an organization from a lower level to the top level. For example, the fact that the vastness of an organization is bound to expand as time rolls by gives the management reasons to accommodate the interests and pleas of their ever-growing staff fraternity. This is because; managing a smaller group might be easy due to various reasons. First, communication amongst people in a smaller group can be more fruitful as compared to when dealing with a larger group of the public (Maslow 2015, p. 142). With this under consideration, larger organizations face the challenge of making decisions that merge with the demands of a significant quota of their staff members. The researchers from this perspective therefore view organizations to be neutral forces on a cultural point of view. They argue in line with the importance of setting up concrete cultural rules that must be embraced by every member of an organization. Nonetheless, the uplifted policies must be accepted by all the associated individuals regardless of their different backgrounds.
There are certain theories that amalgamate with this perspective of organizational theory. These theories include; the general system theory, the contingency theory, and the socio-technical system theory. The general system theory states that any aspect can be categorized and defined as a system (Reynolds 2015, p. 81). Thus, managers must implement solid systems that can propel an organization towards the much desired success. The socio-technical system theory tends to relate the connection between the innovated technologies and the contribution of the workers. For instance, it evaluates how people from different socio-economic background might blend with specific technical alterations that affect them directly while they are on duty. Conversely, the contingency theory evaluates the reaction of the key parties with a reflection of the organizational performances depending on the situation at hand. Consequently, the modernist perspective firmly supports the need of unity amongst the staff members in the search for organizational sustainability and continuous success.
The symbolic interpretive perspective is unique because it prioritizes the emotions and intuitions of the workers when faced with different situations. Unlike the modernist paradigm which focuses on the beliefs of the associated members, the symbolic interpretive scrutinizes the abilities of the workers to understand the ratified culture-oriented policies. Every symbolic interpretive research acknowledges the significance of role play in any organizational setup. This is whereby, the workers can change hide their emotional feelings to the expense of a customer of a colleague (Felin et al. 2015, p. 599). A more profound assessment depicts that workers can be pushed to deliver affirmative results only if they understand what is required of them by their leaders, and they are willing to embrace the demands. This approach can make the workers to defy their respective cultural opinions with an aim of uplifting the norms of their organizations notwithstanding the attached odds.
There are several circumstances which can prompt scholar to stand in support of this perspective of organization theory. For example, customers who are not satisfied by the services offered to them might approach a concerned agent with solid demands. On the other hand, the approached workers should not expose their exact feelings; buts strive to comply with the pleas of their customers in a polite manner. The researchers claim that the exposed physical expressions can affect the communication between clients and servers; an implication that can be extended to the general performance of an organization under scrutiny.
The identified symbolic interpretative theories include; institutional theory, ambiguity theory, and the enacted environment. The institutional theory states that an organization is shaped by the people who are associated with its operations directly and the other forces from the external society. The enacted environment on the other hand exposes how individual interpretation of the primary environmental concepts can affect the performance abilities of people. For example, a belief that an organization is sustainable should motivate the believing team to act in a sustainable manner (Maslow 2015, p. 142). At this point, the influence of particular norms put in place by the management cannot be sidelined. For instance, it is through the intervention of the management that workers can feel valued to believe that the operative systems and programs are sustainable. This can enable them to conduct themselves in line with the expectations of the management regardless of the challenges that they encounter at work (Martin 1990, p. 347). Last but not least, the ambiguity theory supports the execution of approaches that entice many people in the targeted environment. The policies in question must push the masses to perceive the organization in a specific way, but to the benefit of the organization.
The postmodern researchers ignore the impact of organization culture; questioning its existence and influence in sustaining an organization. According to the postmodernists, organizational cultures are mere norms put in place by the ruling organs to portray their dominance and authority (Lockn 2003, p. 62). This notion can be proved from the alterations put in place in case a new management takes over from the initial founders of any organization. The new team can come up with a new mission statement and other policies which might be different from the original management dynamics and approved cultural conceptual. An in-depth evaluation of their argument unveils some traces of success of their work considering the fact that some of the new changes might be helpful irrespective of the preliminary cultural call outs (Grey 2008, p. 173).
Researchers and supporters of this perspective view organizations as bodies that bring people together as long their desires push them towards similar operations (Clegg et al. 2015, p. 79). Unlike the modernist perspective where organization cultures and the cultures of the involved people are perceived as the primary motivational forces, the postmodern focuses on the outcome of the operations. For instance, the new management group can easily determine the group of workers who might be willing to work with the new demands and changes within their departments and working environments. This can help them pinpoint the misconducts, fragmentations, dissatisfaction, and other management gaps.
The structural theory forms an integral theoretical image of the postmodern perspective. This theory states that organizations stand a significant chance of conquering the main odds and challenges in case employees understand the structures of the approved system. This is whereby; the workers who accept the changes by a new management can embrace the proposed policies to emerge victorious even if the initial cultures and rules were opposing the current circumstances (Ahrne et al. 2016, p. 96). Consequently, it can be argued that the feeling of sustainability is derived from the foreseen results of any operation. On the other hand, the attached team of workers can only analyze the anticipated outcomes by understanding and acknowledging the structure of the organization. This situation brings out workers can easily dance with the tune of a transparent management force that is willing to involve throughout in an operational mission (Du 2015, p. 400). The postmodern perspective simply elevates the need of flexibility in management. Workers are mobilized to respect the decisions of the managements, but expect to understand those policies to be able to work well and effectively.
Analysis of the Three Perspectives
A deeper evaluation of the three perspectives exposes the extent of linked competing forces. Clearly, there are contradictory concepts that define the three perspectives of organization theory, with each supporting specific management factors. For example, there is a concrete rivalry between the postmodern and the modernist researchers. The latter group openly sidelines the influence of culture in organizational management whereas, the former support the cultural impact as far as motivation and sustainability is concerned (Shafritz et al. 2015, p. 113). The contradiction between the two approaches is further promoted by the given explanations aimed to divulge how organizations can achieve the results that are desired. For example, the modernists claim that the cultural protection extended to the staff fraternity can propel them to work efficiently. Therefore, the management must maintain the initial cultural interests identified during the first phases of organizational foundation. On the other hand, the postmodernist believe that cultural alterations are equally significant because they can help the management to identity a reliable team of workers which is also beneficial to an organization.
Additionally, the magnitude of the gap in the arguments of the researchers in respective paradigm highlights the competing dynamics. For instance, the symbiotic interpretive researchers focus their argument on how people can be forced to behave in a particular manner while on duty despite the fact that they might hold different viewpoints regarding those traits (Young & Ghoshal 2016, p. 91). On the contrary the other two perspectives are shaped by other different concepts. It is essential to note that these researchers were highly motivated to come up with the most actual policies depending on the prevailing situations, and therefore, all the perspectives are crucial and worth the attention directed upon them.
The organization theory is vital due to various articulated reasons. Through this theory, leaders can get to understand the primary concepts that can either sabotage their intended missions and goals or those that can offer them the desired sustainability. The fact that most employees contribute magnificently to the achievement of the selected objectives reveals why cohesion between the management and other departmental setups is imperative. Therefore, there is a positive chance that leaders might be able to come up with the best choices in management in case they understand the motivational forces within their working environments. Just to mention, all the researchers in the three perspectives of organization theory support the general implication of the entire management approach. This nonetheless contradicts with the notions that expose the competing forces that segregate all the three perspectives. In as much as they all support different opinion, the success of any organization majorly relies on the willingness of the associated parties to embrace flexibility and the ratified rules.
- Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N. and Seidl, D., 2016. Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. European Management Journal, 34(2), pp.93-101.
- Clegg, S. R., Kornberger, M., & Pitsis, T. 2015. Managing and organizations: An introduction to theory and practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
- Du Gay, P., 2015. Organization (theory) as a way of life. Journal of Cultural Economy, 8(4), pp.399-417.
- Felin, T., Foss, N.J. and Ployhart, R.E., 2015. The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), pp.575-632.
- Grey, C. (2008). A very short fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying organizations. Los Angeles: Sage.
- Hatch, M.J. and Cunliffe, A.L., 2013. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hatch, M. J. 2011. Organizations: a very short introduction (Vol. 264). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hendry, J. 2013. Management: a very short introduction (Vol. 368). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lock, E. 2003. Postmodernism and Management. London: Emerald
- Martin, J. 1990. Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1(4), 339-359.
- Maslow, A.H., 2015. A theory of human motivation. Classics of Organization Theory, 50, p.142.
- McAuley, J., Duberley, J., & Johnson, P. 2007. Organization theory: Challenges and perspectives. London: Pearson Education.
- Reynolds, P.D., 2015. Primer in theory construction: An A&B classics edition. London: Routledge.
- Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S. and Jang, Y.S., 2015. Classics of organization theory. London: Cengage Learning.
- Young, C. and Ghoshal, S., 2016. Organization Theory and the Multinational Corporation. New York: Springer.