Organisation Theory

...

II/ Weber: rational organisations built upon legitimate domination to promote efficiency in achieving their purpose

Max Weber, another pioneer of modern organisational theories, made observations on the rise of large modern organisations such as the military and the industry, which gradually took precedence over the Church, artisan corporations and small family-run businesses. According to Weber, the emergence of these large organisations is the result of a deeper change in the thinking of social life, namely the replacement of behaviour based on common values or social norms by behaviours led by the search for more systematic efficiency, thus an instrumental logic which subordinates any action to a specific objective or goal. This instrumental rationality, both technical and economic, is slowly taking over political, moral and cultural considerations and guide the process of organising social life, from productive work to everyday life. Weber thus regards the ideal of instrumental rationality as the basis for modern organisations. This ideal legitimises the power exercised in the organisation: if a person in the hierarchy can impose an order to a subordinate, it is because both individuals belong to the same organisation, occupy a specific position within that organisation and it is considered rational and efficient that this order be given and followed. Similarly, the exercise of authority by a hierarchal superior is subject to this same rationality: any order cannot simply be given, it must be consistent with the organisation’s guidelines and rules previously formalised. Weber uses the term “rational-legal domination” to describe how this rationality is exercised and the legitimacy it gives to the one who has authority in the organisation. Domination is therefore defined as the probability that certain specific commands will be obeyed by a group of persons. It thus does not include every mode of exercising power or influence over other persons. Domination (authority) in this sense may be based on the most diverse motives of compliance: all the way from simple habituation to the most purely rational calculation of advantage. Hence every genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary compliance, that is, an interest in obedience[8].

Modern organisations therefore differ from traditional societies where positions are often inherited by birth and power could be exercised arbitrarily or politically. Modern organisations and the activities of their members pursue the ideal of free exercise of reason, so as to find the most suitable and effective way of achieving the purpose of the organisation. The establishment of the bureaucratic administration is thus, according to Weber, a powerful manifestation of rationalisation. It reflects the progression of legal or rational domination at the expense of traditional or charismatic legitimacy often present in previous organisational structures. Weber believes that to be efficient and profitable, a modern organisation requires bureaucratic authority, based on a systematic division of labour, specialisation, strict hierarchy, stability and formal rules.[9] Knowledge of these rules can be viewed as expertise within the bureaucracy and is key to career advancements.

To sum up, organisations are formed by rational individuals in the search for more efficient ways of pursuing their common goal. These big organisations are defined as bureaucracies due to their formal structure and the legal-rational way authority is exercised. As stated before, knowledge lead to expertise which in turn, lead to even further efficiency. Weber considered these bureaucracies as the most efficient way of organising work. While in theory this may be true, bureaucracies have later on shown many deficiencies resulting in criticism of his theory and paving the way for new organisational theories.

Even if Taylor’s model sprang from factory production and Weber’s from the offices of public administration, they had a lot in common, notably a reliance on standardisation of work, control of quality, fine-grained division of labour and a strict hierarchy. They both strongly believed that the organisational models they proposed would prevail and eventually supplant all others because they were the most efficient. Both Scientific Management and Weber’s theory of bureaucracy can be classified as closed, rational system models. They presuppose that organisational actors are fully rational in all their decisions, that they always strive to achieve the organisation’s expressed goals, and that the structure and functions of an organisation are independent of its environment.[10] Knowledge, either by transfer or experience, is key in securing a position within such organisation and allows for career advancement or higher compensation.

III/ A biased approach to organisational change

The change means the alteration of status quo or making things different. It may refer to any alteration which occurs in the overall work environment of an organisation. When an organisational system is disturbed by some internal or external force, the change may occur. The change is modification of the structure or process of a system, that may be for the better or for the worse. It disturbs the existing equilibrium or status quo in an organisation.

This paper has so far only used closed system models to explain the dynamics of an organisation. It has described Taylor’s and Weber’s view on formal mechanical organisations independent of their environment. In this context, a change in organisation would imply an internal change driven by the members of the organisation. There are a number of factors which lead to what are termed internal triggers for change. Organisations redesigning to fit a new product line or new marketing strategy are typical examples, as are changes in job responsibilities to fit new organisational structures[11]. To illustrate Taylor’s scientific management approach, an example of change could be the result implementing a new “best way” to produce efficiently. Management would first theorise this new procedure, then experiment it and finally implement it to all relevant workers if proven efficient. However one could ask himself whether the change as described above really is an organisational change, in the sense that the new procedure implemented by management was a result of a scientific procedure, which is in accordance with the prevalent organisational structure, i.e. scientific management. Shouldn’t an organisational change only be characterised as such if the structure changes, for example if the “new best way” to produce efficiently dictated that workers should have a say in the decision-making, in opposition to what Taylor believed.