Lecture
The distinctive qualities of the modern organization theory (SRT) are: its conceptual and analytical basis, its calculation on the data of empirical research, and, above all, its unifying character. These qualities are formulated in philosophy, which states that the only and significant way to study an organization is to study it as a system.
Modern organization theory is by no means a uniform theory. Each author and researcher highlights something different when considering a system. Perhaps the most obvious unifying thread in the study of systems is an attempt to view the organization in its integrity. The study of the system should be based on the method of analysis, including the system for changing interdependent variables. Of course, human systems contain a huge set of dependent variables, which makes the ability to understand them more difficult than the simultaneous solution of the most complex equations.
Systems analysis aims to explore the organization as a system of interdependent variables. As a result, modern organization theory, which recognizes systems analysis, raises the conceptual level of organization learning over classical and neoclassical theories. Modern organization theory asks and answers a number of interrelated questions that were not seriously considered by the other two theories.
Key questions asked STO:
The main components included in the system analysis include: parts and their interaction, connecting processes and system objectives.
Parts of the system and interdependence. The first and main part of the system is the person and the individual qualities that he brings to the organization. The primary personality, of an individual, are the motives and attitudes that determine the range of desires and which he hopes to satisfy by working in a certain system.
The second part of the system is the formal distribution of functions, usually called the formal organization. Formal organization is a model of interrelated works that make up the structure of the system. In a formal organization, the main conflict * arises from the requirements of the system, and the range of individual desires. In any case, the person has some expectations regarding the work that he must perform; and, conversely, the work demands how the person should carry it out. Considerable attention in modern organization theory is paid to inconsistencies resulting from the interaction of organizational and individual requirements.
The third part in the system of organization is the informal organization. Above it was already quite a lot said about its nature. But it should be noted that there is a model of interaction between a person and an informal group. This interaction is conveniently explained as mutual adaptation of requirements. An informal organization requires certain behavior from its members, and a person expects to get satisfaction from communicating with colleagues. Both of these sets of expectations of the organization and the person interact, resulting in a person adapts his behavior to the requirements of the group, and the group may change the requirement for the person due to the influence of the individual on the group's behavior standards.
Much of what has been said about the various requirements in an organization can also be interpreted using the concepts of status and role (fourth part).
Modern organization theory is based on the results of research in the field of social psychology related to equivalent behavioral models arising from the requirements for the role of the individual, both formal and informal organizations, and how the person perceives this role. A merger process is a force that acts to unify divergent elements together to preserve the integrity of an organization. The merger process is largely associated with the modification of role expectations.
The fifth part of the system analysis is the physical environment in which the work is done. Although this element of the system enters indirectly into what has already been said about the formal organization and its functions, it is useful to separate these concepts. Speaking of the physical environment in the course of work, in complex systems, the interaction of a man-machine pair takes place. An engineer cannot approach such a relationship from a purely technical, engineering point of view. These problems are the responsibility of the social theorist. Attention should be focused on feedback on the quality of the performance of an ordered production function with the prospect of reducing errors in the system. From this point of view, work cannot be efficiently organized, if one does not take into account the psychological, social, and physiological characteristics of the people participating in this work. Machines and processes should be designed to satisfy certain generally accepted psychological and physiological properties of people, rather than adapt people to machines.
In conclusion, we can say that the parts of the system that are of strategic importance are the person, the formal structure, the informal organization, the models of status and role, and the physical environment of work. All of these parts are connected in a single configuration, called an organizational system. Consider the processes that link these parts.
Binding processes. With a great deal of confidence we can say that all the parts mentioned above are interrelated. Although this statement is fairly true, it does not play a large role in system theory, unless some attempts are made to analyze the processes by which this interaction is achieved. Role theory is dedicated to certain interaction processes. In addition, modern organization theorists point to three other connecting activities that proved to be universal for organizational behavior in social systems. The connecting processes include communication, balance and decision making.
Communication * is often mentioned in the neoclassical theory, but the emphasis here is on the description of forms of communicative activity (that is, formal - informal, vertical - horizontal, linear-functional). Communication as a mechanism that connects parts of the organization into a single whole, are considered by deeply considered analysis.
One of the aspects of modern organization theory is the study of the communications network in the system. Communication is considered as a method by which the interaction of various parts of the system is possible. Communication acts not only as an incentive, expressed in a specific activity, but also as a controlling and coordinating mechanism linking decision-making centers in a system to a synchronized model. Organizations consist of parts that communicate with each other, receive messages from the outside world and store information. All these communication functions, taken together, constitute the model of the system as a whole.
The concept of balance as a connecting process includes a number of some rather complex ideas. Balance refers to a balancing mechanism by which the various parts of the system are maintained in a harmoniously structural relationship with each other.
The need for balance stems directly from the very nature of the systems. It is impossible to imagine an orderly connection between parts of the system without introducing the concept of the idea of a stabilizing or adapting mechanism.
Balance is of two varieties - semi-automatic and innovative. Both of these forms of balance act to ensure the integrity of the system in changing conditions, internal or external to the system, 22. The first form of balance, semi-automatic , refers to what some call homeostatic, permanent properties of systems. This means that the system has built-in tendencies to maintain steady states. If social organizations are open, self-regulating systems, then the question arises as to how much control and regulatory processes are necessary for such systems. The problem is how stabilizing processes are automatic in systems that adapt to change. March and Simon give an interesting answer to this problem, which is partly based on the type of change and on the regulation that is needed to adapt to this change. Systems have action programs that turn on when a change needs to be made. If the change is relatively insignificant, and if it occurs within the limits of the established action programs, then one can fairly confidently predict that the adaptation made by the system will be semi-automatic.
Now we need to explore the role of innovative , creative balancing efforts. The need for innovation * arises when adaptation to change is outside the scope of existing programs designed to maintain balance in the system. In this case, new programs must be developed so that the system maintains internal harmony.
New programs are created by searching for possible alternatives for action to overcome a specific change through trial and error. But the limits of improvement are limited by the possibilities determined by the amount and variety of information presented in the system at a certain time. New combinations of alternatives for innovative purposes depend on:
A system with too good memory can narrow down your behavioral choice to a size that will stifle any innovation.
Much of what has been said about communication and balance is reminiscent of a cybernetic model in which both of these processes play vital roles. Cybernetics * deals with feedback and control in all kinds of systems. Its purpose is to maintain the stability of the system during the change. Cybernetics cannot be studied without considering networks of communications, information flows, and some sort of balancing process aimed at preserving the integrity of the system.
Cybernetics focuses attention on key issues concerning the system. These questions are: how are the communication centers interconnected and how do they work? Corollary to this question: what is the structure of the feedback system? Next, what information is stored in the organization and at what points? And as a result: how accessible is this information to decision-making centers? The third question is: how consciously does the organization approach the management of its own parts, that is, to what degree do policy-making centers receive control information with sufficient frequency and reliability to clearly represent the actions of system segments? Finally, what are the learning abilities of the system (innovation)?
Answers to questions posed by cybernetics are crucial for understanding the processes of balancing and communication in systems. Although cybernetics * applies to a large extent to the technical problems of automation, the feedback, control and regulation model in all systems has much in common. Cybernetics is a fruitful field that can be used to synthesize communication and balance processes.
A wide range of topics dealing with types of solutions in social systems is the basis for analyzing another important process in organizations. Decision analysis is one of the main contributions of March and Simon in their book, Organizations . The two main classes of decisions that take place in an organization are making a decision * on production and on participation in the system.
The production decision * is largely the result of the interaction between individual behavior and the requirements of the organization. Motivation analysis becomes a central aspect in the study of the nature and results of this interaction. Individual decisions about participation in an organization affect such problems as the relationship between the benefits provided by the organization and the requirements it puts forward. Making a decision * on participation also focuses on the reasons why people remain in the organization or leave it.
Decision making is usually interpreted as internal variables in an organization that depend on work, individual expectations and motivations, and organizational structure.
The objectives of the organization. An organization * has three goals that can themselves be either closely related or independent. It is growth, stability and interaction. The latter goal relates to organizations that exist primarily to provide an environment for the associations of their members, such as homeworkers. Interestingly, these goals are inherent in organizations of various forms and levels of complexity, from simple watch movements to social systems.
This similarity for the purposes of organizations was considered by a large number of researchers and developed into a field of knowledge called the "general theory of systems" dedicated to the discovery of the general principles of the organization. The ultimate goal of the general theory of systems is to create the science of the universal principles of organization, or, if you like, a universal science that uses as a starting point the common organizational elements embedded in all systems.
Modern organization theory is on the border of the general theory of systems. Both the general systems theory and the modern organization theory study:
Modern organization theory and general systems theory are similar in that they view organization as a whole. However, they differ in the scale of this generalization. The general theory of systems deals with systems of all levels, while modern organizational theory focuses primarily on social organizations. One could ask the question: how can the theory of organization and control benefit from the study of systems at other levels? Before answering this question, it should be noted that these systems are of other levels. Boulding offers a convenient method for classifying systems:
Static structure is the level of anatomy of the system, i.e. system structures; for example, the structure of the universe.
A simple dynamic system is the level of a clock mechanism that predetermines the necessary movements.
The cybernetic system is the thermostat level, the system moves to maintain balance through the process of self-regulation.
An open system is a level of independent systems, the system moves forward and includes living organisms.
Genetically - the social system - the level of cellular society, characterized by the division of labor between cells.
Animal systems - the level of mobility, indicates a goal-oriented behavior.
Human systems - the level of interpretation of symbols and the transfer of ideas (ideological communication).
Social system - the level of human organizations.
Transcendental systems are the level of limits and absolutes that demonstrate a systemic structure, but are essentially unknowable.
A similar approach to the study of systems by finding universal principles, common to all levels of the organization, offers interesting possibilities for the theory of organization management. By finding analogues in systems of simpler types, one can shed light on social systems. For example, the characteristics of cybernetic systems are similar to such properties of social organizations as feedback, stabilization, and the phenomenon of control. Thus, some facets of cybernetic models could be compared with social organization. However, it should be borne in mind that incorrectly chosen analogues are a great danger. The surface similarities between simpler forms of systems and social systems are evident everywhere. The instinct-based societies of ants, for example, do not give particularly instructive lessons for understanding rationally conceived human organization. Consequently, care should be taken that the analogies proposed for connecting the levels of systems would not be a simple exercise in eloquence. Для того, чтобы аналогии были полезными и ценными, они должны демонстрировать свойственные им структурные подобия или скрытые идентичные эксплуатационные принципы, действия.
Современная теория организации почти неизбежно ведет, как было показано, к обсуждению общей теории систем. Наука о всеобщих принципах организации имеет множество приверженцев, особенно среди биологов. Теоретики организации в науке управления не могут позволить себе упускать из виду вклад общей теории системы. Действительно, понятия СТО могли бы предложить многое тем, кто работает с общей теорией систем. Но идеи, относящиеся к общей теории, являются в огромной степени иллюзорными. Мы имеем полезную общую теорию, хотя в сущности при недостатке измеримости это лишь имитация знания. Неспособность определить (количество) и измерить элементы универсальной организации подрывает успех практических исследований, к которым могла бы быть применена общая теория системы.
Organization theory: where are we going? Most sciences have their own vision of the world they are studying, and management science is no exception. This world consists of certain parts. One of the goals of science is to synthesize parts into an organized concept of the field of study. As science develops, its position on the structure of the world changes. We briefly touch on the direction of change in the three sciences: physics, economics, and sociology, in order to compare them with the development of the managerial view of human organization.
Вообще, физика, экономика и социология схожи в двух основных аспектах. Во-первых, они предложили макроточку зрения как начальное систематическое понимание их области изучения. Во-вторых, по мере того, как наука развивалась, больше внимания стали уделять анализу частей организации, нежели системе в целом. Это микропериод.
В физике и экономике некоторые ученые высказали недовольство постоянным распылением мира вселенной. Реакцией на микроподход была новая теория или теории, занимающиеся всей системой, снова на макроуровне. Этот третий период научного развития кажется более очевидным в физике и экономике, чем в социологии.
Причина этого макро-микро-макро порядка научного прогресса лежит, возможно, в гипотезе, что обычно проблемы, пришедшие человеку в голову в первую очередь, имеют для него величайшую ценность. Ученый пытается обнаружить порядок в бесконечности. Но после того, как макрозаконы или модели систем сформулированы, появляются отклонения, которые требуют анализа не столько целой системы, сколько в рамках отдельных частей, которые её составляют. Затем интенсивное изучение микромира может привести к созданию новых общих законов, вытесняющих старые модели организации. Старая и новая модели могут также стоять рядом, причем каждая объясняет различные классы явлений. Или старые и новые концепции организации могут слиться и произвести единый творческий синтез.
Now let us ask ourselves: how does this all relate to the problem of organization in management science? It seems that the concepts of organization have gone the same way of development in this area, as in the three just mentioned. Obviously, the classical organization theory deals with the principles common to all organizations. This is a macro-organizational view.
Many deviations from the classical model of management were the result of human behavior. The only way to understand these deviations is to microscopically examine the specific situational aspects of human behavior. Thus, the role of the neoclassical school is microanalysis.
Наблюдали и ранее, что где-то в процессе исследования концепция социальной системы, которая является ключом к пониманию исследований Хоторна, уходит на задний план. Возможно, идея настолько очевидна, что исследователи и авторы работ о человеческих отношениях упускали её из виду. В любом случае давление исследований, проводимых в мире неформальной организации, проблемы морального духа и продуктивности, лидерства, участия и т. п. вытеснили понятие социальной системы в область забвения. А теперь, с появлением современной теории организации, идея социальной системы возродилась.
Эта школа утверждает, что её действующая гипотеза основана на макроточке зрения, то есть изучении организации в целом.
Человеческое поведение в организациях, да и саму организацию, не возможно адекватно понять в рамках основных правил классической и неоклассической доктрин. Познание человеческой организации требует творческого синтеза огромного количества эмпирических данных, высокого уровня дедуктивных рассуждений, изучения образного исследования, понимания индивидуальных и социальных ценностей. Достижение всех этих целей и включение их в структуру понятия системы является задачей современной теории организации.
Современная теория организации нуждается в инструментах анализа и создании концептуальной структуры, присущей именно ей, но она должна также впитать достижения многих других областей знаний. Может случиться, что эта структура будет исходить из общей теории системы. Новые области исследования, такие как теории решения, теории информации и кибернетика * , дают возможность рассчитывать на появление новых аналитических и концептуальных средств. Современная теория организации представляет собой передовой край исследований, имеющий большое значение для управления. Потенциал огромный, потому что он дает возможность объединить то, что является ценным в классической теории, с социальными и естественными науками в систематизированную и интегрированную концепцию человеческой организации.
Comments
To leave a comment
Management
Terms: Management