A p r i l , 1968
ORGANIZATION THEORY
BY
Jon H. Barrett and Arnold S. Tannenbaum
I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research, The University o f Michigan
A paper prepared f o r the Management-Career Education Project - Wayne
State U n i v e r s i t y ,
1
i
ABSTRACT
The p r i n c i p a l theme o f t h i s paper i s t h a t organization i s
order.
No set o f persons can achieve a c o l l e c t i v e purpose unless
t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s are o r d e r l y and p r e d i c t a b l e — p e o p l e must come t o
work at appropriate times, perform appropriate tasks i n a proper
sequence, coordinate t h e i r e f f o r t s w i t h other members, communicate
needed information t o appropriate persons, and do s i m i l a r things i n
a non-random way. One of the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f any manager i s t o make sure t h a t a purposeful orderliness characterizes
the a c t i v i t i e s o f h i s organization's members.
He might use a num-
ber o f means t o do t h i s , i n c l u d i n g s t r u c t u r a l arrangements, job
s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , s e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g procedures, leadership pract i c e s , and s t r a t e g i e s f o r i n t e g r a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
goals.
This paper explores each o f these means and p o i n t s out
changes t h a t have occurred over the years i n the k i n d o f order
c a l l e d f o r by d i f f e r e n t t h e o r i s t s .
I n a d d i t i o n , the concepts o f
simple and complex order, socio-technical systems, and open systems
are explored as approaches t o understanding the nature o f order i n
organizations.
ORGANIZATION THEORY
The s c i e n t i f i c study of any phenomenon leads t o changing ideas.
As research accumulates, older conceptions become obsolete and must
be modified or discarded i n favor of formulations t h a t can accommodate
the new
"facts,"
Our ideas about what organizations are and how
they
operate have changed considerably over the past f i f t y years and w i l l
continue t o evolve as study proceeds.
themselves are changing.
Furthermore, organizations
Rapid advances i n the technologies available
to organizations, the r i s i n g education l e v e l o f the general p o p u l a t i o n ,
the increasing general p r o s p e r i t y and the advent of unionism require
organizations t h a t d i f f e r from those of e a r l i e r periods.
In addition,
the s c i e n t i f i c study of organizations i s i t s e l f beginning t o have an
e f f e c t on organizations, as behavioral s c i e n t i s t s and administrators
seek ways t o use emerging knowledge as a basis f o r increasing the effectiveness of organizations.
Because both organizations themselves and
our ideas about them are c o n t i n u a l l y changing, i t probably w i l l never
be possible t o present the d e f i n i t i o n o f organization or the p r i n c i ples by which organizations f u n c t i o n .
What we can do, however, i s
to keep our conceptualizations i n tune w i t h s c i e n t i f i c knowledge as
t h i s knowledge grows.
i n tune,"
This paper represents one such attempt t o "keep
We w i l l discuss o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory from a s o c i a l psycho-
l o g i c a l p o i n t of view.
Other papers w i l l t r e a t i n d e t a i l many of the
issues t h a t we touch upon i n t h i s chapter.
-2WHAT IS ORGANIZATION?
The term organization applies t o a wide v a r i e t y o f phenomena, phys i c a l as w e l l as s o c i a l .
When we say t h a t something i s organized we
mean t h a t i t manifests some p a t t e r n o r order.
I n the case o f s o c i a l
organization the order r e f e r s t o the actions and i n t e r a c t i o n s o f people*
The patterns t h a t comprise s o c i a l organizations are not d i s c e r n i b l e i n
the
same way as are patterns of p h y s i c a l o b j e c t s ; we cannot f e e l or see
an organization as an e n t i t y .
Nonetheless, orderliness i n the i n t e r -
actions o f persons can be denoted and measured, and t h i s o r d e r l i n e s s i s
the
essence o f o r g a n i z a t i o n .
A basic c r i t e r i o n o f order i s p r e d i c t a b i l i t y .
I n s o c i a l organiza-
t i o n s , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i s p a r t l y t o be understood i n terms o f the expectations t h a t persons have about what others w i l l do. To the extent
t h a t the behavior o f others conforms t o expectations, we have some degree o f order and the basis f o r organization; t o the extent t h a t the
behavior does not conform, we have disorder and d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n .
P r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n organizations manifests i t s e l f i n a number o f
ways.
A f i r s t form o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y occurs through c e r t a i n u n i f o r -
m i t i e s o f behavior on the part o f members.
For example, a l l o r nearly
a l l members a r r i v e at work, stop f o r l u n c h , and leave work at scheduled
times.
S i m i l a r l y , a l l persons i n given categories perform prescribed
actions w i t h i n c e r t a i n t o l e r a b l e margins o f v a r i a t i o n . U n i f o r m i t i e s
may apply, not only t o the members' behavior i n the usual and narrow
sense, but also t o t h e i r general appearance, dress, and t o t h e i r expressions o f relevant a t t i t u d e s .
Thus the behavior o f large numbers
-3of persons i s predictable i n terms o f the single standard or norm
around which u n i f o r m i t y occurs,
A second form o f p r e d i c t a b i l i t y occurs when some members f o l l o w the
orders ( o r suggestions) o f others.
Thus the behavior o f the former
conforms t o and i s p r e d i c t a b l e i n terms o f the expectations o f the
latter.
Such p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i s premised on the a u t h o r i t y that some
persons have r e l a t i v e t o others.
Social organizations cannot e x i s t
without such a u t h o r i t y and the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y t h a t i t creates.
T h i r d , much behavior i n organizations i s p r e d i c t a b l e because i t i s
repetitive or cyclic.
Organizations, i n other words, manifest regu-
l a r i t y through time so t h a t w i t h respect t o many e s s e n t i a l aspects the
behavior o f members tomorrow w i l l look p r e t t y much l i k e , and w i l l be
predictable i n terms o f , t h e i r actions today.
F i n a l l y , many organizations have c h a r t e r s , plans, r u l e s , and by laws.
These define i n general terms how the organization should f u n c t i o n , and
t o the extent t h a t the organization does f u n c t i o n i n these prescribed
ways, p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i s maintained.
In ongoing organizations there are, o f course, exceptions t o be observed t o the i d e a l o f order and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y implied above, but
these exceptions simply imply something less than p e r f e c t organization.
However, imperfect organization may i n f a c t be b e t t e r , f o r some purposes, than p e r f e c t o r g a n i z a t i o n — w h i c h raises a basic question: What i s
order f o r ?
I n the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , order i s a means f o r the e f f i c i e n t
production o f some product(s) o r s e r v i c e ( s ) .
Attempts t o maximize order,
however, sometimes r e s u l t i n defeating the organization's major purpose(s).
-4-
Much o f so-called "bureaucratic red tape" and "paperwork" i l l u s t r a t e
attempts t o achieve p r e d i c t a b i l i t y which, i f excessive, may have the
e f f e c t o f impeding p r o d u c t i v i t y .
Nonetheless a major problem f o r organizations i s the maintenance o f
order and the maximization o f e f f i c i e n c y *
Implicitly c r e x p l i c i t l y , this
problem has been the concern o f a l l major organization t h e o r i s t s , and
the e v o l u t i o n o f organizational theory can be seen as a development i n
conceptions about the kind o f order t h a t characterizes, o r should charact e r i z e , organizations f o r most e f f e c t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g .
ACHIEVING AND MAINTAINING ORDER IN ORGANIZATIONS
S t r u c t u r a l Arrangements
Organization t h e o r i s t s have considered a v a r i e t y o f s t r u c t u r a l arrangements f o r systematically r e l a t i n g parts o f an organization t o each
other.
These s t r u c t u r a l arrangements can be viewed as expected patterns
of i n t e r a c t i o n among the members o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n , which are more or
less formally s p e c i f i e d , are reasonably stable through time, and represent some degree o f deliberate choice by organization leaders.
Aspects
o f s t r u c t u r e include span o f c o n t r o l , t a l l n e s s o r f l a t n e s s , degree o f
c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , s i n g l e o r m u l t i p l e r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and channels
of communication.
Many o f these s t r u c t u r a l arrangements are schemati-
c a l l y represented, w i t h varying degrees o f accuracy, i n the f a m i l i a r
organization chart.
By s p e c i f y i n g f o r members the expected patterns o f
communication, i n f l u e n c e , and decision.making, s t r u c t u r a l arrangements
make i t unnecessary f o r them c o n t i n u a l l y t o make i n d i v i d u a l decisions
regarding such procedural matters.
They also reduce the p o s s i b i l i t y
-5t h a t d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s i n the same p o s i t i o n would reach d i f f e r e n t
decisions regarding whom t o communicate w i t h , take orders from, or
look t o f o r decisions. I t i s i n t h i s way t h a t s t r u c t u r a l arrangements
enhance the orderliness of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s .
Span o f c o n t r o l .
The number o f i n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t i n g t o a given
supervisor i s c a l l e d the span of c o n t r o l of t h a t supervisor.
Many
early w r i t e r s f e l t t h a t a l i m i t e d span o f c o n t r o l (no more than 5 t o 7
subordinates) was necessary t o insure t h a t supervisors could
adequately
inspect, coordinate, and correct the performance o f t h e i r subordinates.
For example, Graicunas has argued t h a t there i s an inherent danger i n
broadening the span of c o n t r o l because a superior supervises not only
i n d i v i d u a l s , but also the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l s .
While the
addition of i n d i v i d u a l s t o a group i s an a r i t h m e t i c f u n c t i o n , the i n crease i n number of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between i n d i v i d u a l s i s geometric.
Hence, the number of r e l a t i o n s h i p s increases very r a p i d l y with only small
[Place Table 1 about here]
increments i n span of c o n t r o l .
Spans greater than 5 or 6 thus are thought
t o become i n t o l e r a b l y complicated.
Table 1, taken from Carzo and
Yanouzas i l l u s t r a t e s the problem posed by Graicunas,^
Later w r i t e r s challenged the p r i n c i p l e of narrow span of c o n t r o l ,
arguing t h a t a broader span would give members more autonomy and
en-
courage them t o develop s e l f - r e l i a n c e , thus improving the organization's
performance.^
Contemporary views tend t o agree with Worthy t h a t a
small span of c o n t r o l i s not an e f f e c t i v e p r i n c i p l e f o r a l l s i t u a t i o n s .
TABLE 1 . *
Number o f Relationships w i t h Various Numbers of
Subordinates
Number o f
Number o f
Subordinates
Relationships
1
1
2
6
3
18
4
44
5
100
6
222
7
490
8
. 1,080
9
2,376
10
t
. . . 5,210
11
11,374
12
24,708
•k
Taken from Carzo and Yanouzas, op c i t .
-6One study found a span o f c o n t r o l o f 49 a t the f i r s t l e v e l o f supervision
t o be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f the more successful o f a set o f continuous process companies. This same study also i n d i c a t e d , however, t h a t the
optimal span o f c o n t r o l varied g r e a t l y f o r d i f f e r e n t methods o f product i o n — f o r companies which produced unique products t o customer's orders
the optimal span o f c o n t r o l was only 13. So while research evidence and
contemporary theory c a l l f o r a broader span o f c o n t r o l than e a r l i e r
t h e o r i e s , the p a r t i c u l a r span t h a t i s optimal appears t o vary as a
function o f such f a c t o r s as organization s i z e , type o f production
technique, l e v e l o f management concerned, and probably the p e r s o n a l i t y
of the i n d i v i d u a l supervisor as w e l l .
Tallness or f l a t n e s s . Tallness or f l a t n e s s i s u s u a l l y thought o f
as a f u n c t i o n o f the number o f h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l s i n an organization
r e l a t i v e t o the t o t a l number o f members.
Classical theories stressed
the importance o f r e l a t i v e l y t a l l organization s t r u c t u r e s as the best
means o f i n s u r i n g adequate performance by organiztion members and o f
coordinating the work o f various sub-units.
span o f c o n t r o l and close
Their emphasis on narrow
supervision implied t h i s t a l l s t r u c t u r e , as
did t h e i r assumption t h a t the best way t o insure coordination o f the
e f f o r t s o f sub-units was t o provide a l e v e l of immediate supervision
over those u n i t s .
More recent t h e o r i s t s stress the advantages of gen-
e r a l supervision and broader span o f c o n t r o l , thus implying t h a t a
f l a t t e r s t r u c t u r e may be more e f f e c t i v e .
I n a d d i t i o n , recent t h e o r e t i -
cal statements question the assumption t h a t coordination requires the
addition o f l e v e l s o f supervision:
S t i l l another of the forces which shapes the pyramid o f
a u t h o r i t y i s the organizational axiom t h a t every required
f u n c t i o n must be c l e a r l y vested i n some s p e c i f i c r o l e . . .
Suppose, f o r example, t h a t a small manufacturing company
has three major f u n c t i o n a l departments: manufacturing,
sales, and engineering design. The e f f o r t s of the three
departments must be coordinated i f the organization i s t o
produce and s e l l some a r t i c l e . . . The usual l o g i c of organization says t h a t since the three departments must coordinate, they must have a coordinator. Hence the organizat i o n acquires another l e v e l . . . We could object t o t h i s
deduction.
The three departments must coordinate; why
should not the three department heads recognize t h i s necess i t y and work out the necessary agreements?3
While generally c a l l i n g f o r a f l a t t e r organization s t r u c t u r e than c l a s s i
cal t h e o r i s t s , contemporary students of organization are t r y i n g t o under
stand the conditions which might determine the r e l a t i v e effectiveness of
t a l l or f l a t s t r u c t u r e s .
Two recent s t u d i e s , f o r example, have found
that size o f the organization may
determine whether t a l l or f l a t s t r u c -
tures are more e f f e c t i v e — a t l e a s t i n terms of providing s a t i s f a c t i o n
for managers.
These studies found t h a t f o r organizations of less than
5,000 members, f l a t t e r s t r u c t u r e s produced greater s a t i s f a c t i o n , whereas
f o r those w i t h more than 5,000 members there was e i t h e r no r e l a t i o n ship or t a l l e r structures provided greater s a t i s f a c t i o n .
Other fac-
t o r s , such as the type of organization a c t i v i t y (manufacturing,
t a r y , research, s e r v i c e ) , may
mili-
also determine whether a f l a t or t a l l
s t r u c t u r e i s most e f f e c t i v e .
C e n t r a l i z a t i o n or d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n . Two elements help define the
concept of c e n t r a l i z a t i o n : (1) the h i e r a r c h i c a l l e v e l at which decisions are made, and (2) the number of persons involved i n making any
given decision.
Some approaches emphasize a c e n t r a l i z e d form of or-
ganization i n which the u l t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y f o r making decisions
should
-8reside i n a single l o c a t i o n — a supreme commander. I n a d d i t i o n , the
emphasis placed by these approaches on s p e c i f i c a c c o u n t a b i l i t y —
being able accurately t o pinpoint r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the consequences
of d e c i s i o n s — l e a d s them t o stress the i n d i v i d u a l r a t h e r than the group
as the decision maker. Theorists using t h i s approach therefore c a l l f o r
v i r t u a l l y a l l p o l i c y decisions t o be made by a small number of i n d i v i d u a l s , located near the top of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l hierarchy. Other
t h e o r i s t s , i n c o n t r a s t , p o i n t t o accuracy of available information as
one important ingredient i n e f f e c t i v e decision making, and argue t h a t
f o r many kinds of decisions, the most adequate and accurate information
e x i s t s at lower l e v e l s i n the organization.^
Thus, the a d v i s a b i l i t y of
concentrating decision-making a u t h o r i t y at higher l e v e l s i s questioned
on the grounds t h a t i t may not lead t o the highest q u a l i t y decisions,
S i m i l a r l y , some t h e o r i s t s p o i n t out t h a t the effectiveness of a decision
i s determined not only by i t s t e c h n i c a l or f a c t u a l q u a l i t y , but also by
i t s a c c e p t a b i l i t y t o those who have t o carry out the decision.^
The
a c c e p t a b i l i t y of a decision, i n t u r n , i s often a f f e c t e d by whether or
not those who must carry out the decision have had the opportunity t o
p a r t i c i p a t e i n making i t .
The t h r u s t o f these approaches i s t o suggest
t h a t decision making should be decentralized i n two w a y s — f i r s t , by
having decisions made at a lower l e v e l i n the organization rather than
a higher l e v e l , when there i s an o p t i o n ; and second, by using group
decision-making procedures t h a t allow the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of those persons
who are t o carry out the decisions. Current c r i t i c s of t h i s k i n d of
d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n point t o the d i f f i c u l t i e s i t creates f o r e f f e c t i v e
-9coordination.
One suggested answer t o t h i s problem l i e s i n the con-
cept o f m u l t i p l e r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
Single or m u l t i p l e r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
Classical t h e o r i s t s
stressed the importance o f u n i t y o f command, arguing t h a t there should
be a single l i n e o f command from the organization's c e n t r a l a u t h o r i t y
t o every member o f the organization, which means every member reports
t o only one superior.
I t was assumed t h a t by s i m p l i f y i n g r e p o r t i n g r e -
l a t i o n s h i p s i n t h i s way, order would be enhanced by e l i m i n a t i n g the
p o s s i b i l i t y o f any member r e c e i v i n g c o n f l i c t i n g orders from superiors.
Contemporary t h e o r i s t s point t o the d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t such chains o f
command create f o r h o r i z o n t a l c o o r d i n a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n modern organizations which tend more and more t o be organized i n terms o f specialized
functions (e.g., finance, marketing, research, manufacturing, sales,
etc,).^
With r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s arranged i n single v e r t i c a l
l i n e s w i t h i n specialized f u n c t i o n s , i t becomes very d i f f i c u l t t o achieve
the coordination required t o take a new product or service from planning through t o an e f f e c t i v e sales o r a p p l i c a t i o n campaign.
One sugges-
ted s o l u t i o n t o such problems i s a dual s t r u c t u r e (sometimes c a l l e d a
"matrix" o r " g r i d " s t r u c t u r e ) i n which the same set o f persons i s o r ganized both i n terms o f functions and i n terms of i n d i v i d u a l products
or areas o f service.
I n such a s t r u c t u r e a marketing s p e c i a l i s t , f o r
example, might report t o one superior who heads a marketing group, and
t o another superior who heads a group concerned w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r product.
Since the same i n d i v i d u a l i s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the decision making
by both groups, the groups are less l i k e l y t o reach incompatible
sions.
deci-
Horizontal coordination i s enhanced, but not a t the expense of
-10the v e r t i c a l coordination of f u n c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s .
This and other
forms of m u l t i p l e r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s and m u l t i p l e work-group memberships are r e c e i v i n g increased a t t e n t i o n as modern s t r u c t u r a l arrangements f o r achieving order i n organizations.
Communication channels.
The importance of information flow i n
maintaining order i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i s obvious.
must be c o l l e c t e d f o r e f f e c t i v e decision making.
Information
Decisions, suggestions,
or orders must be communicated i f organization members are t o behave
i n accord with them.
Organization t h e o r i e s d i f f e r i n the formally
s p e c i f i e d communication patterns they c a l l f o r . Theories which assume
t h a t s t r u c t u r a l s i m p l i c i t y enhances order c a l l f o r communication t o take
place almost e x c l u s i v e l y along the hierarchy defined by formal reporting
relationships.
Other t h e o r i e s , i n c l u d i n g most c u r r e n t ones, c a l l f o r a communication
network, w i t h information flowing f r e e l y upward, downward, and sideways.
In a d d i t i o n , some contemporary views s t r e s s the importance o f the work
group as an important locus o f communication and influence.
For example,
according t o L i k e r t communication i n a group composed of subordinates
and a supervisor eliminates some o f the inconsistencies i n communication
t h a t occur when communication takes place on the t r a d i t i o n a l man-to-man
basis.
8
In the group, a subordinate cannot t e l l h i s superior one thing
and h i s peers another.
ordinates equally.
S i m i l a r l y , the superior informs a l l o f h i s sub-
The group thus provides p o t e n t i a l means through
which inconsistencies may be reconciled and through which c o n f l i c t s
be resolved.
may
Furthermore, the exchange o f information and the discussion
t h a t are possible i n group s i t u a t i o n s create a sense o f involvement and
-11consequently a f e e l i n g o f commitment on the part o f group members t o
whatever decisions the group may make.
However, the use o f the group as
a means o f communication and decision making requires o f members human
,f
r e l a t i o n s " s k i l l s not o r d i n a r i l y considered i n t r a d i t i o n a l theories.
Se-
l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g procedures must therefore be devised t o take such
s k i l l s i n t o account, i f the group system o f communication and influence
i s t o be e f f e c t i v e .
Job Specifications
Specifying the nature o f the job performed by a member i s another
way o f achieving order.
Organization theories d i f f e r i n the kind o f
job s p e c i f i c a t i o n s they c a l l f o r .
Specialization o f tasks.
Classical theories o f organization c a l l e d
f o r a high degree o f s p e c i a l i z a t i o n o f tasks. To achieve maximum e f f i ciency, i t was argued, work should be broken down i n t o a number o f e l e ments or p a r t i a l tasks, each t o be performed by a separate i n d i v i d u a l .
This would make each i n d i v i d u a l member's task easy t o l e a r n , permit rapid
achievement o f maximum p r o f i c i e n c y , and eliminate the i n e f f i c i e n c i e s
involved i n p e r i o d i c a l l y changing from one a c t i v i t y t o another.
Later
t h e o r i s t s , viewing the reactions o f members t o such p a r t i a l tasks, began
t o question the a d v i s a b i l i t y o f a high degree o f task s p e c i a l i z a t i o n .
They argued t h a t the repetitiousness of such f r a c t i o n a t e d j o b s , r a t h e r
than increasing e f f i c i e n c y , a c t u a l l y reduced i t by creating bored, alienated members w i t h l i t t l e motivation t o perform the tasks.
Such t h e o r i s t s
c a l l e d f o r jobs t o be defined w i t h broader scope, t o include a l a r g e r
proportion o f the a c t i v i t i e s required t o produce a u n i t o f the organi-
-12zation's product. This would increase the v a r i e t y and i n t e r e s t inherent
i n the j o b , and provide a greater sense o f accomplishment from completing
a cycle o f job a c t i v i t i e s . Suggestions f o r accomplishing t h i s include
job r o t a t i o n and job enlargement. I n job r o t a t i o n , jobs remain highly
s p e c i a l i z e d , but i n d i v i d u a l s change job assignments p e r i o d i c a l l y t o add
v a r i e t y and reduce boredom. I n job enlargement, the d e f i n i t i o n o f the
job i t s e l f i s changed so t h a t f o r instance, instead o f j u s t i n s t a l l i n g
a s i n g l e p a r t , an employee might assemble an e n t i r e u n i t himself. Or,
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r constructing a product may be assigned t o a group,
g i v i n g every member o f the working team a chance t o share i n the e n t i r e
t a s k , without having t o carry out every operation by himself.
This i s
consistent with the notion o f socio-technical systems discussed on pages
20-22,
Current approaches tend t o avoid e i t h e r extreme on the issue
of task s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and t o look instead f o r ways o f combining the advantages o f both. Psychologists have long emphasized, f o r example, that
i n d i v i d u a l s are themselves specialized, each having a somewhat unique
combination of i n t e r e s t s and s k i l l s . This being the case, jobs defined
w i t h no s p e c i a l i z a t i o n would require every member t o spend time on a c t i v i t i e s he i s e i t h e r not i n t e r e s t e d i n o r not good a t . On the other hand,
few i n d i v i d u a l s have such a narrow range o f i n t e r e s t s o r s k i l l s t h a t a
h i g h l y f r a c t i o n a t e d job would provide them with challenge or s a t i s f a c t i o n . Current views c a l l f o r a more f l e x i b l e approach t o job d e f i n i t i o n ,
i n c l u d i n g attempts t o divide up tasks i n l i g h t o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s
and s k i l l s o f present or a n t i c i p a t e d organization members.
We have been t a l k i n g about h o r i z o n t a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n — d i v i d i n g the
execution o f a task among i n d i v i d u a l s at the same organizational
level.
-13There i s also v e r t i c a l s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , i n which d i f f e r e n t aspects of a
task are divided among various l e v e l s i n the organization's hierarchy.
Most tasks require some planning and decision making, the s e t t i n g up of
m a t e r i a l s , and f i n a l l y the executing of the t a s k .
9
In c l a s s i c a l
approaches, these parts of a task were t o be divided among l e v e l s , with
planning and decision making assigned t o higher l e v e l s , and the s e t t i n g
up of materials and the execution of the task assigned t o lower l e v e l s .
Recent approaches c a l l f o r less s p e c i a l i z a t i o n i n t h i s sense; t o the ext e n t possible lower l e v e l members are involved i n planning and decision
making regarding the tasks they are executing.
Standardization of task performance.
I t has sometimes been assumed
t h a t there i s one best way t o perform any given task.
This one best
way
should be determined (by time and motion study, f o r example), and a l l
persons performing t h a t task should be t r a i n e d and given incentives t o
insure t h a t they carry out the task i n the one best way.
While i t i s
obvious t h a t some ways o f performing a task are more e f f i c i e n t than
others, the "one best way" has proven t o be e l u s i v e .
Furthermore, i t is
clear t h a t persons who are a c t u a l l y doing a job f r e q u e n t l y develop
methods superior t o the f o r m a l l y s p e c i f i e d best way.
Contemporary
t h e o r i s t s are therefore less l i k e l y t o place exclusive emphasis on performance standardization as an e f f e c t i v e means of achieving purposeful
order.
They are l i k e l y t o stress instead the clear s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the
goal t o be a t t a i n e d , leaving some v a r i a t i o n of method t o those who must
carry out the task.
In t h i s way the expertise of those who are per-
forming the job can be more f u l l y u t i l i z e d .
-14An approach c a l l e d work s i m p l i f i c a t i o n i l l u s t r a t e s one strategy i n
this matter.^
According t o t h i s method, small groups of workers are
given r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r devising new and b e t t e r work methods. These
workers, who are taught some of the p r i n c i p l e s of time and motion study,
w i l l collaborate w i t h engineers and other "experts" i n developing the
new methods. Not only are such groups able t o create superior techniques
of production, but they are also h i g h l y motivated t o carry out the newly
formulated task because of t h e i r sense o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h i t . Thus
the t o t a l process i s more l i k e l y t o be a s a t i s f y i n g one f o r workers, and
t h e i r morale and sense o f s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t i s enhanced.
Selection and Training
I t i s obvious t h a t organization members must have s k i l l s appropriate
t o the tasks they are t o perform.
disorder i n organizations.
Incompetence contributes t o confusion and
Selection and t r a i n i n g are two means f o r
i n s u r i n g that members possess necessary s k i l l s .
Views regarding the
most appropriate use of these means t o achieving order have changed i n
a number of ways over the years.
F i r s t , many e a r l i e r approaches assumed t h a t people had r e l a t i v e l y
f i x e d a b i l i t i e s and t h a t s e l e c t i n g the man w i t h the r i g h t a b i l i t i e s
the key t o proper placement.
was
More recent views assume greater p o t e n t i a l
on the part of i n d i v i d u a l s and stress the importance of t r a i n i n g and d e r
velopment schemes designed t o b r i n g out some of t h i s p o t e n t i a l .
Secondly, there has been a change i n the k i n d of s k i l l s emphasized
i n s e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g .
Under older approaches, s e l e c t i o n and t r a i n -
ing were concerned w i t h s p e c i f i c t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s required f o r the per-
-15formance of p a r t i c u l a r tasks. According t o current views, which stress
the importance o f s o c i a l psychological f a c t o r s , s e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g
should be concerned with a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s as w e l l
as
t e c h n i c a l ones. Contemporary approaches are also more l i k e l y than
e a r l i e r ones t o stress the importance o f selecting or t r a i n i n g f o r
general a b i l i t i e s and a broad range o f s k i l l s . Some current t h e o r i s t s
point out t h a t organizations are increasingly subject t o changing demands
from the environment and suggest t h a t the goal o f t r a i n i n g and development
e f f o r t s should become less t o t r a i n members t o perform t h e i r c u r r e n t l y
assigned tasks and more t o prepare them f o r an uncertain f u t u r e .
According t o t h i s view, e f f o r t s should be made t o develop each i n d i v i d u a l ' s
general a b i l i t i e s t o the f u l l e s t , thus maximizing h i s chances o f meeting
successfully whatever future task demands are made upon him.
1 1
F i n a l l y , current approaches are more l i k e l y than e a r l i e r ones t o
suggest that general a d a p t a b i l i t y might be an important selection c r i terion.
One recent study i n d i c a t e d the importance o f general education
i n determining how adaptable workers are t o t e c h n o l o g i c a l change. I t
was discovered, f o r example, t h a t many older workers did less w e l l than
younger workers i n adapting t o the requirements of new tasks simply because older workers had received less general education than.younger
workers.
12
Leadership
Leadership—the process by which one organization member influences
the behavior of a n o t h e r — i s one basic means f o r maintaining order i n
organizations.
Changes have occurred over the years i n the kind of
-16leadership c a l l e d f o r by organization t h e o r i s t s .
Supervisory leadership.
Classical theorists called f o r v i r t u a l l y
a l l leadership t o ha exercised through a c l e a r l y defined hierarchy of
a u t h o r i t y (the r i g h t t o give o r d e r s ) , i n which f o r m a l l y designated
superiors issue orders, and subordinates s t r i c t l y obey such commands.
The obedience o f subordinates, according t o t h i s theory, i s based on
t h e i r general b e l i e f i n the l e g i t i m a c y o f t h i s h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e .
Superior-subordinate r e l a t i o n s h i p s were supposed t o be h i g h l y impersonal,
with personal t i e s and i n d i v i d u a l needs e x p l i c i t l y excluded.
Such r e l a -
tionships are intended t o contribute t o "the dominance o f a s p i r i t
of f o r m a l i s t i c impersonality,..,,, without hatred or passion, and hence
without a f f e c t i o n o r enthusiasm.
The dominant norms are concepts o f
s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d duty without regard t o personal c o n s i d e r a t i o n s " .
13
The
importance a t t r i b u t e d by c l a s s i c a l t h e o r i s t s t o r e l i a b i l i t y o f p e r f o r mance also l e d them t o c a l l f o r f a i r l y close, d e t a i l e d supervision of
subordinates.
F i n a l l y , the l e g i t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y o f superiors was backed
up by t h e i r a b i l i t y t o reward and punish, as a means o f encouraging compliance w i t h orders.
Later organization t h e o r i e s , i n the human r e l a t i o n s t r a d i t i o n of Mayo
and h i s Harvard colleagues, painted q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t p i c t u r e o f superiorsubordinate r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
These theories c a l l e d f o r more personalized
r e l a t i o n s h i p s between leader and f o l l o w e r on the assumption t h a t personal
feelings can be an important source o f motivation f o r members.
Further-
more, research indicated t h a t members were i n f a c t responding w i t h personal f e e l i n g t o such t r a d i t i o n a l techniques as close supervision but
-17t h a t these reactions were leading t o resistance and opposition* Such
research suggested t h a t t e c h n i c a l expertise and supportiveness rather
than simple legitimacy or reward and punishment might be the more effect i v e bases f o r the supervisor's a u t h o r i t y .
Contemporary approaches are more l i k e l y than e a r l i e r ones t o stress
the importance of f l e x i b i l i t y on the p a r t of supervisors and
tors*
administra-
Pointing out the implications f o r management of the more recent
conceptions of "complex man," Schein s t a t e s :
Perhaps the most important i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t the successful
manager must be a good diagnostician and must value a s p i r i t
of i n q u i r y . I f the a b i l i t i e s and motives of the people under
him are so v a r i a b l e . . . he must have the p e r s o n a l - f l e x i b i l i t y
and the range of s k i l l s necessary t o vary h i s own behavior. . *
He may be h i g h l y d i r e c t i v e a t one time and w i t h one employee
but very nondirective at another time and w i t h another employee. .
. In other words, he w i l l be f l e x i b l e , and w i l l be prepared t o
accept a v a r i e t y of interpersonal r e l a t i o n s h i p s [and] patterns
of a u t h o r i t y . . .
1 4
Chapter
, dealing with leadership, contains a d d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l concern-
ing the exercise o f interpersonal c o n t r o l by
Social groups as sources of leadership.
c l a s s i c a l theories c a l l e d f o r leadership
supervisors.
As we mentioned above,
t o be exercised exclusively
through i n d i v i d u a l superior-subordinate r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
They had no con-
ception of work groups as meaningful s o c i a l u n i t s , and c e r t a i n l y not
sources of interpersonal c o n t r o l .
who
I t was
as
the human r e l a t i o n s t h e o r i s t s
f i r s t c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o the s o c i a l group as a powerful force f o r
enhancing—or t h w a r t i n g — e f f e c t i v e order i n organizations.
the e a r l y Harvard research, i t was
In some of
found t h a t groups e s t a b l i s h and enforce
informal standards or norms regarding such behaviors as l e v e l o f work
-18output. These norms can be e i t h e r compatible w i t h o r i n opposition t o
standards desired by management. Because the group can administer important s o c i a l rewards (support, acceptance, respect) o r punishments
(ostracism, r i d i c u l e ) , i t can c o n t r o l t h e behavior o f i n d i v i d u a l organization members i n l i n e w i t h group norms, t h u s , i n essence, exercising
leadership over i t s members. Current t h e o r i s t s continue t o stress the
importance o f peer and work group leadership as a supplement t o supervisory l e a d e r s h i p . ^
Goal I n t e g r a t i o n
1
E f f e c t i v e order i s impossible unless organization members want t o
contribute t h e i r energies and s k i l l s t o achieve o r g a n i z a t i o n a l goals.
Whether ^
not members want t o contribute depends, i n t u r n , on whether
such c o n t r i b u t i o n s are compatible w i t h t h e i r own, personal goals.
The
p a r t i c u l a r approach taken t o assure t h i s i n t e g r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l and
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l goals
depends i n part on"the assumptions one makes
about the nature o f man and h i s motives.
Organization t h e o r i s t s have
changed over the years w i t h regard t o t h e i r underlying view o f man.
Classical theories o f administration assume man t o be a r a t i o n a l economic being who w i l l do whatever gets him the greatest economic gain.
An important element i n Taylor's s c i e n t i f i c management approach, f o r
instance, involved the use o f wage incentives t o assure workers' com16
pliance w i t h the "one best way" o f performing a job,
h i s colleagues
Elton Mayo and
at Harvard U n i v e r s i t y questioned the supremacy o f economic
motivation and pointed t o the importance o f other, noneconomic, sources
of m o t i v a t i o n ,
1 7
Especially important i n Mayo's view were man's s o c i a l
-19m o t i v e s — h i s need t o e s t a b l i s h and maintain congenial, supportive r e l a tionships w i t h others. Mayo believed t h a t the i n d u s t r i a l r e v o l u t i o n had
l e f t work devoid of i n t r i n s i c meaning, so t h a t meaning had t o be sought
i n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s on the job. This led t o the p o s t u l a t i o n o f a
general need t o be a member o f a s o c i a l group at work. I n one o f the
early studies by the Harvard group, i t was found t h a t workers, rather than
lose the a f f e c t i o n and respect o f t h e i r peers, d e l i b e r a t e l y held t h e i r
production and incentive income down.
Subsequent research confirmed t h a t
18
informal
s o c i a l groups can determine a member's l e v e l o f work output.
Thus the concept o f man was broadened t o include important s o c i a l , as well
as economic motives.
I t should be noted t h a t both the economic motives
emphasized by c l a s s i c a l t h e o r i s t s and the s o c i a l motives stressed by the
Harvard group were seen as being e s s e n t i a l l y unrelated t o the nature o f
the work i t s e l f .
These two views implied t h a t something e x t r i n s i c t o
the work i t s e l f — m o n e y o r the opportunity
t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n informal
s o c i a l groups—must be provided i n r e t u r n f o r the cooperation o f members
i n achieving the organizational purpose.
More recent theories broaden the conception o f man f u r t h e r by p o i n t ing out t h a t both economic and s o c i a l motives are important, but that
n e i t h e r gives a complete p i c t u r e ,
A number o f other motives have been
proposed as having relevance f o r understanding behavior i n organizations.
These include a motive t o develop competence i n performing some valued
task,and needs f o r s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n , independence, power, and varied
19
experience.
These a d d i t i o n a l motives c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o the impor-
tance o f i n t r i n s i c rewards, which are determined by the nature o f the
-20work i t s e l f and are enjoyed i n the course of performing the work.
Wot
only has the l i s t o f motives grown longer, but i t has become apparent
t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r from each o t h e r , and t h a t the motives f o r an
i n d i v i d u a l may
change over t i m e . ^
0
Thus contemporary views recognize
the organization member "to be a more complicated being than d i d e a r l i e r
views.
Modem organization i t s e l f w i l l have t o be more complex than
t h a t prescribed by c l a s s i c a l models i f i t i s t o accommodate modern man.
Table 2 summarizes the changes we have been discussing regarding the
kind of order c a l l e d f o r by d i f f e r e n t organization theories and the
means prescribed f o r achieving and maintaining t h i s order.
In p r i n c i p l e ,
an organization can be located at one p o i n t or another along the dimensions of t h i s t a b l e .
C l a s s i c a l organization t h e o r i s t s have tended t o
[Place Table 2 about here]
prescribe o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s and processes t h a t f a l l toward the
l e f t hand side of the t a b l e .
Contemporary t h e o r i s t s have moved more,
i f not a l l the way,to the r i g h t .
THE ORGANIZATION AS A SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM
We have defined an organization as a system of actions and i n t e r actions among persons.
We should add t h a t persons i n organizations
i n t e r a c t w i t h machines o r a work technology as w e l l as w i t h other persons.
The character of the technology i n an organization therefore has important e f f e c t s on the reactions and adjustments of members and on t h e i r
interactions.
The routineoness and high degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of
some jobs i s d i c t a t e d i n large measure by the character of technology
Table 2.
Dimensions D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g Various Approaches t o
Maintaining
I.
II.
III.
Order i n Organizations
S t r u c t u r a l Arrangements
narrow span^ of c o n t r o l . . . . . .
broader, variable span o f c o n t r o l
t a l l structure
f l a t t e r structure
single r e p o r t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s
multiple reporting relationships
centralized decision making
decentralized
communication only along the hierarchy
network o f communication i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s
decision making
Job Specifications
high degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . . , , . , . . . . »
low degree of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n
standardized work methods
i n d i v i d u a l i z e d work methods
Selection and Training
emphasis on s e l e c t i o n rather than on t r a i n i n g ^
extensive use o f t r a i n i n g and development as w e l l as s e l e c t i o n
selection and t r a i n i n g l i m i t e d t o immediate
task s k i l l s
s e l e c t i o n and t r a i n i n g directed toward
broader a b i l i t i e s and a d a p t a b i l i t y
emphasis on t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s
concerned with administrative and
interpersonal s k i l l s as w e l l as
technical
[Table 2>]
IV.
Leadership
leadership exercised e x c l u s i v e l y by
superiors
leadership exercised by peers and s o c i a l
groups as w e l l as superiors
superior-subordinate r e l a t i o n s h i p s
h i g h l y formal, impersonal
superior-subordinate r e l a t i o n s h i p s
more i n f o r m a l , personalized
a u t h o r i t y of superiors backed up by
reward and punishment
a u t h o r i t y of superiors backed up by
e x p e r t i s e , supportiveness
close, d e t a i l e d supervision
general supervision
..
emphasis on f i x e d , general-purpose
supervisory s t y l e
V.
emphasis on f l e x i b l e , situation-determined
supervisory s t y l e s
Goal I n t e g r a t i o n
emphasis on "rational-economic man"
emphasis on "complex man," w i t h s o c i a l ,
competence, and s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n
motives as w e l l as economic
focused on e x t r i n s i c rewards
concerned with i n t r i n s i c rewards
-21employed i n the modem organization. Technology also a f f e c t s the phys i c a l closeness o f persons and t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n .
These important s o c i a l psychological e f f e c t s o f technology have not
always been taken i n t o account i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l planning. An i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s f a i l u r e i s presented by T r i s t and Bamforth i n t h e i r study
of the i n t r o d u c t i o n of mass-production technology i n t o B r i t i s h coal mines.
For reasons unknown t o management, the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the new technology
l e d t o a rash of absenteeism and t o c o n f l i c t s and tensions among workers.
As a r e s u l t o f the new technology morale declined s e r i o u s l y , production
remained low, and psychosomatic ailments o f epidemic proportions broke
out among miners. I n introducing the new technology the management had
f a i l e d t o consider the miners' custom o f working together i n t i g h t - k n i t
groups. Such groups provided support f o r the miners against the dangers
and i n s e c u r i t i e s o f mining. The miners also derived s i g n i f i c a n t s a t i s factions from the f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e i r groups. The new method
of mining i s o l a t e d the workers from each other so t h a t they could not
t a l k w i t h one another e a s i l y . Because the technology i n t e r r u p t e d the
s o c i a l t i e s that were e s s e n t i a l t o the miners' sense o f s e c u r i t y and
s a t i s f a c t i o n , the mental h e a l t h , morale, and productive e f f o r t s of the
21
miners declined.
The intimate connection between the t e c h n o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l aspects
of organization has l e d behavioral s c i e n t i s t s t o t h i n k o f an organization
not simply as a s o c i a l system, but r a t h e r as an i n t e g r a l socio-technical
system, and attempts are being made t o derive p r i n c i p l e s t h a t help explain
t h i s system.
Mann has i l l u s t r a t e d such p r i n c i p l e s by describing the
-22i n t r o d u c t i o n of computers i n t o an o f f i c e :
F i r s t o f a l l , there i s greater r i s k under the new system.
A serious e r r o r costs more, and a t y p i c a l e r r o r costs more
i n d o l l a r s and time. There i s a greater chance t h a t an
e r r o r w i l l be detected, and there i s a greater chance
t h a t an e r r o r w i l l be a t t r i b u t e d . Secondly, there i s
greater interdependence and i n t e g r a t i o n . Others' e r r o r s ,
both i n the work group and o u t s i d e , have a greater e f f e c t .
There i s greater contact w i t h others i n own [ s i c ] group
required and there i s a greater necessity f o r understanding
the system. T h i r d l y , there i s greater r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f
the system. There i s less choice of a l t e r n a t i v e means,
less work checked by people (more by machine), and the work
pace i s d i r e c t e d more by machines or by others than by oneself.
The e f f e c t s of the e l e c t r o n i c data processing equipment i n
terms o f the above dimensions can be summarized as f o l l o w s .
Computer systems mean more r a t i o n a l i z e d o r g a n i z a t i o n , more
i n t e g r a t i o n , greater interdependence, a c u r t a i l e d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f job grades, more c e n t r a l i z e d decision-making, higher
performance standards, more accuracy i n deadlines, greater
coordination, more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , greater job v a r i e t y , more
d i f f e r e n t i a l job i n t e r e s t , enhanced chance t o l e a r n , an i n creased understanding of the system, less job s e c u r i t y , more
pressure, less promotion o p p o r t u n i t i e s , a drop i n employee and
supervisors' s a t i s f a c t i o n s and mental h e a l t h , changes i n r e l a t i o n s between company and i t s employees, company and i t s
customers, changes i n readiness f o r change. This a l l implies
a heavy spending from the employee "good w i l l bank,"
22
OPEN-SYSTEMS THEORY
One s p e c i f i c development i n current t h i n k i n g about organizations
deserves s p e c i a l mention because of the widespread impact i t appears t o
be having.
This i s the emergence of open-systems theory as a concep-
t u a l framework t o guide t h i n k i n g about o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior.
Several
contemporary t h e o r i s t s acknowledge the importance of t h i s development,
and Katz and Kahn make open-systems theory an i n t e g r a l part of t h e i r
treatment of the s o c i a l psychology o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
23
Anything c o n s i s t i n g of a set of u n i t s with r e l a t i o n s h i p s among
them may be c a l l e d a system.
An open system i s such a set of u n i t s
which i n t e r a c t , not only with each o t h e r , but also with some l a r g e r environment.
Open systems theory, then, represents
an attempt t o develop
concepts which describe the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f open systems and the gene r a l processes by which they f u n c t i o n .
These open systems may be mechani-
c a l , such as an engine; b i o l o g i c a l , such as a c e l l o r a human being; o r
s o c i a l , such as a f a m i l y , a work o r g a n i z a t i o n , o r a n a t i o n .
Most system
t h e o r i s t s conceive o f d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f systems, arranged i n a hierarchy
of inclusiveness, so t h a t any given system i s composed o f lower-level or
sub-systems, and i s at the same time p a r t o f a h i g h e r - l e v e l o r super-system.
For example, a single l i v i n g c e l l i s an open system; a human being .is compos
of a large number o f such c e l l s ; a group consists o f a number o f i n d i v i d u a l
human beings; an organization includes several groups; a nation i s made up
of numerous organizations, and so f o r t h .
While the approaches'of d i f f e r e n t systems t h e o r i s t s d i f f e r considera-'
b l y i n d e t a i l s , we can f o r i l l u s t r a t i o n present a t y p i c a l l i s t o f general
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f open systems, which most t h e o r i s t s would accept.
Input, transformation, and output processes.
Every open system
takes i n some form o f matter-energy o f information from i t s environment,
transforms
i t i n some way, and exports a t l e a s t some o f i t back i n t o the
environment.
Two i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s feature o f openness i l l u s t r a t e
the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s o f contemporary from c l a s s i c a l organizational models.
F i r s t , openness c a l l s a t t e n t i o n t o the dependence o f the organization on
i t s environment; t o s u r v i v e , organizations must therefore be adaptable
or f l e x i b l e .
Classical t h e o r i e s , by t h e i r emphasis on r e g u l a r i t y and
s t a b i l i t y (as c r i t e r i a o f order) prescribed h i g h l y r i g i d organization.
-24Emphasis on such features as u n i t y o f command, communication exclusively
along the h i e r a r c h y , and standardization o f jobs meant organizations with
f i x e d systems o f operations. Such a system could f u n c t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y
only on the assumption t h a t the organization i s a r e l a t i v e l y closed system, shielded i n some way from the requirements of a changing environment.
Modern organization theory, which assumes openness, i s concerned w i t h
change as w e l l as w i t h s t a b i l i t y . The openness p r i n c i p l e c a l l s a t t e n t i o n
t o the organization member as an i n d i v i d u a l i n h i s own r i g h t , w i t h commitments, p e r s o n a l i t y , needs and values t h a t he brings t o the organization
from the outside. Classical approaches made overly simple assumptions
about the i n d i v i d u a l member, t r e a t i n g him as i f he were a simple and f i x e d
component i n a simple, f i x e d and closed system.
Entropy/negative entropy.
The maintenance of order i s a problem f o r
a l l s y s t e m s — p h y s i c a l , b i o l o g i c a l o r s o c i a l — t h a t are t o maintain t h e i r
i n t e g r i t y as systems.
entropy or disorder.
The n a t u r a l tendency o f a l l systems i s toward
"Negative entropy," which i s an index o f degree o f
order, almost never increases spontaneously w i t h i n a self-contained system.
Hence s p e c i a l provisions are required t o keep systems from breaking down,
from d i s s o l v i n g i n t o random associations o f elements r a t h e r than p a t terned arrangements.
Such order-maintaining provisions imply s p e c i a l
inputs o f energy form the system's environment and s p e c i a l mechanisms
w i t h i n the system f o r converting these inputs i n t o system order (negative
entropy).
I n organizations, these s p e c i a l mechanisms include the various
means o f maintaining order which we discussed e a r l i e r — s t r u c t u r a l
ments, leadership, t r a i n i n g , e t c .
arrange-
-25Information feedback. Feedback involves the i n t e r n a l communication
of information about the system's f u n c t i o n i n g so t h a t corrections can be
made when the system i s a c t i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y . The term "negative feedback" r e f e r s t o the communication o f i n f o r m a t i o n about errors or d e f i ciencies i n aspects o f system f u n c t i o n i n g . Negative feedback i s e s s e n t i a l
to the s u r v i v a l o f the system, because without some way o f discovering and
correcting i t s e r r o r s , i t w i l l continue t o make these errors and w i l l u l t i m a t e l y destroy i t s e l f . B i o l o g i c a l organisms have i n t r i c a t e systems f o r
such feedback. For example, the proprioceptive senses c o n t i n u a l l y inform
us how our arms and legs are moving as we walk from one place t o another.
Without such feedback we would over step or under step, we would lose our
balance, and we would stumble i n t o obstacles. Organizations also make use
of negative feedback mechanisms, although t h e o r i s t s have d i f f e r e d regarding the form such mechanisms should t a k e . In the view o f some e a r l i e r
t h e o r i s t s , the only k i n d o f information considered o f importance f o r feedback was information regarding the t e c h n i c a l performance o f organization
members and sub-units. This information was t o be c o l l e c t e d f o r the exclusive use of superiors i n e v a l u a t i n g , rewarding or punishing, and c o r r e c t ing the performance o f t h e i r subordinates. I n f o r m a t i o n , then, was seen
as a t o o l t o be used by superiors i n c o n t r o l l i n g the behavior o f subordinates. Current views place more stress on information as a t o o l f o r
s e l f - c o n t r o l , t o be used by each organization member or sub-unit i n cont r o l l i n g and c o r r e c t i n g i t s own behavior. In l i n e with t h i s , s u b s t a n t i a l
communication i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s i s prescribed t o provide continous feedback o f information t o members at a l l l e v e l s who can make appropriate
-26adjustments.
For example, subordinates should f e e l f r e e t o "correct" a
superior or t o t e l l a superior about t e c h n i c a l problems on the j o b , even
though the superior might not s p e c i f i c a l l y have requested such i n f o r m a t i o n .
S i m i l a r l y , peers can be "corrected" through the communication of v i t a l i n formation about work problems.
Furthermore, i t i s argued t h a t feedback
should include information about the human aspects o f organization (the
a t t i t u d e s , m o t i v a t i o n , c o n f l i c t s and tensions of members), as w e l l as the
technical.
Such information may flow up the hierarchy through the t r a d i -
t i o n a l communication channels, or through a system o f groups which are
set up t o discuss relevant o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f a c t s .
Surveys may sometimes
be employed as a means o f obtaining information about the human organiza94
t i o n which can be f e d back t o members at a l l l e v e l s .
Equifinality.
The p r i n c i p l e of e q u i f i n a l i t y states t h a t a system
can reach the same f i n a l state from a v a r i e t y of i n i t i a l conditions and
by a v a r i e t y o f paths.
A person can reach a state of obesity from an i n i t i a l
state of thinness or fatness by means of eating a great deal or exercising
very l i t t l e or contracting a glandular m a l f u n c t i o n . The p r i n c i p l e o f equif i n a l i t y contradicts the assumption t h a t there i s one best way of organizing or doing a j o b .
The assumption o f e q u i f i n a l i t y implies a more f l e x i b l e
organization than t h a t posited by e a r l i e r views, or a choice between a l t e r n a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l forms t h a t are about equally e f f e c t i v e ,
COMPLEX VERSUS SIMPLE ORDER
In c l a s s i c a l theories order was t o be enhanced through s i m p l i f y i n g
t o the utmost the actions and i n t e r a c t i o n s o f organization members.
The
assumption was t h a t the simpler the system, the more f u l l y members know
what i s expected o f them and the more f u l l y capable they are o f doing what
i s expected.
Conversely, complexity creates confusion and therefore r e -
duces p r e d i c t a b i l i t y .
The c l a s s i c a l t h e o r i s t s attempted t o achieve order
by designing organizations i n the simplest and most l o g i c a l way possible.
The rules were simple, f i x e d , and c l e a r ; the organizational s t r u c t u r e prescribed p r e c i s e , unchanging and uncomplicated patterns o f communication
and a u t h o r i t y ; and organization members were impersonal beings unencumbered
by complicating f a c t o r s o f emotion and p e r s o n a l i t y , or at l e a s t , so they
were assumed.
A system based on such assumptions i s indeed a very o r d e r l y
system—on paper.
However, i n t h e i r attempt t o achieve order through sim-
p l i f i c a t i o n , c l a s s i c a l theories d i d not take important complicating contingencies i n t o account.
Organizations must adapt t o complex and changing
environments and organizations have members who, f a r from being simple,
r a t i o n a l , and impersonal, behave on the basis o f strong personal f e e l i n g
and emotion.
In t a k i n g i n t o account these elements o f v a r i a b i l i t y , some contemporary models do not o f f e r the s i m p l i c i t y and neatness of older models.
But t h i s does not mean t h a t they imply less o r d e r l i n e s s , only t h a t the
bases and the complexity o f the order are d i f f e r e n t than i n e a r l i e r models.
Some contemporary models, f o r example, are r e f e r r e d t o as organic i n
contrast t o the e a r l i e r mechanistic models because the former imply
complex r e l a t i o n s among elements much l i k e t h a t i n b i o l o g i c a l organisms
while the l a t t e r imply r e l a t i v e l y simple r e l a t i o n s l i k e those i n machines.
However, the complexity o f the organic system can lead to confusion and
t o chaos unless those who f u n c t i o n i n i t are appropriately s k i l l e d and
-28^
knowledgeable. The organic system requires the employment of s k i l l s and
the exercise o f i n t e l l i g e n c e t o a degree not c a l l e d f o r i n the mechanistic
system. When the members are able t o understand and cope with the comp l e x i t y , however, t h i s p o t e n t i a l l y confusing organic model can be very
orderly. ^
Such complex order contrasts with simple order much l i k e an
e l e c t r o n i c computer contrasts with a c a l c u l a t i n g machine. The computer's
f u n c t i o n i n g as a socio-technical system i s no less o r d e r l y than the funct i o n i n g of the c a l c u l a t o r — p r o v i d i n g t h a t those who are operating i n the
computer system have the advanced s k i l l s t h a t are appropriate t o i t .
Given these s k i l l s the system i s very orderly—and i t i s capable of f u l f i l l i n g f u n c t i o n s and of making adjustments t h a t are impossible f o r the
less complex system.
2
i
Suggested Readings
Schein, E.H, Organizational Psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965.
A b r i e f , general treatment representing a current social-psychological
view of organizations.
Tannenbaum, A.S. Social Psychology o f the Work Organization. Belmont,
C a l i f . : Wadsworth, 1966.
A concise review o f major social-psychological studies i n work
organizations, i n c l u d i n g a summary of current a p p l i c a t i o n s .
Katz, D . , and Kahn, R,L. The Social Psychology o f Organizations. New York:
Wiley, 1966.
An advanced t e x t i n the s o c i a l psychology of organizations, of
greatest i n t e r e s t t o those with some s o c i a l science background.
McGregor, D. The Human Side o f Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, I960,
A highly readable presentation o f a philosophy o f management
consistent with many current approaches t o organization theory,
L i k e r t , R. The"Human Organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
One example o f a current organization t h e o r y , comparing d i f f e r e n t
management systems and t h e i r r e l a t i v e effectiveness i n using
human resources,
March, J,G. (Ed.) Handbook o f Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.
A major c o l l e c t i o n o f advanced a r t i c l e s reviewing current approaches
t o organizational behavior from the perspectives of psychology,
sociology, economics, and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e science.
i
A
(
[Footnotes]
1.
Carzo, R,, and Yanouzas, J.N. Formal Organization, A Systems
Approach. Homewood, 1 1 1 . : Richard D. Irwin and Dorsey Press, 1967.
2.
Woodward, Joan. Management and Technology. London: Her Majesty's
Stationery O f f i c e , 1958; Worthy, J.C. Organizational structure
and employee morale, American Sociological Review, 1950, 15, 169-179.
3.
Katz, D . , and Kahn, R,L, The Social Psychology of Organizations.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966.
4.
Porter, L.W,, and Siegel, J, The e f f e c t s o f t a l l vs. f l a t organization
structure on managerial job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Personnel Psychology, 1964,
17, 135-148; Porter, L,W., and Siegel, J . The e f f e c t s o f t a l l vs,
f l a t organization structure on managerial s a t i s f a c t i o n s i n f o r e i g n
countries. (Unpublished manuscript) U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a ,
Berkeley, 1964.
5.
L i k e r t , R,
6.
Maier, N.R.F. Psychology i n I n d u s t r y . (3rd ed.) Boston: HoughtonM i f f l i n , 1965.
7.
L i k e r t , R. , 1967, op c i t .
8.
L i k e r t , R.
9.
L i t t e r e r , J.A,
The Human Organization.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967,
New Patterns o f Management.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
The Analysis o f Organizations.
10. Goodwin, H.G. Work s i m p l i f i c a t i o n .
nance, 1958, 72-106.
New York: Wiley, 1965,
Factory Management and Mainte-
11. Schein, E.H, Organizational Psychology.
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1965.
Englewood C l i f f s , N . J , :
12. Tannenbaum, A . S . , and Grenholm, G, A d a p t a b i l i t y of older workers t o
technological change: performance i n r e t r a i n i n g . B u l l e t i n of the
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Association o f Applied Psychology, 1962, 11(2), 73-85,
13. Weber, M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York:
Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1947 ( t r a n s , by A,M. Henderson and Talcott
Parsons), p . 340.
14. Schein, op c i t , p , 6 1 ,
15. L i k e r t , R., 1967, op c i t .
16. Taylor, F.W.
S c i e n t i f i c Management.
New York: Harper, 1911,
17. Mayo, E. The Social Problems o f an I n d u s t r i a l C i v i l i z a t i o n .
Boston: Graduate School of Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Harvard
University Press, 1964; Roethlisberger, F . J . , and Dickson, W.J.
Management and the Worker, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1964,
18. Zaleznik, A . , Christenson, CR. , and Roethlisberger, F.J. The
M o t i v a t i o n , P r o d u c t i v i t y , and S a t i s f a c t i o n of Workers. Boston:
Harvard Graduate School of Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1958.
19. A r g y r i s , C. I n t e g r a t i n g the I n d i v i d u a l and the Organization.
New York: Wiley, 1964; Maslow, A.H. Motivation and Personality.
New York: Harper, 1954; White R. Motivation reconsidered: the
concept o f competence. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 297-333.
5
20. Vroom, V.H. Some Personality Determinants o f the E f f e c t s o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n . Englawood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1960.
21. T r i s t , E . , and Bamforth, K, Some s o c i a l and psychological consequences o f the Longwall method o f coal g e t t i n g . Human Relations,
1951, 4 ( 1 ) , 3-38.
22. Mann, F.C. Managing change. I n A.S. Tannenbaum ( E d , ) , The Worker
i n the New I n d u s t r i a l Environment. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Foundation f o r
Research on Human Behavior, 1962.
23. A l l p o r t , F.H. A structuronomic conception o f behavior: i n d i v i d u a l
and c o l l e c t i v e . I . S t r u c t u r a l theory and the master problem of
s o c i a l psychology. Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962,
64, 3-30; A l l p o r t , F.H, The s t r u c t u r i n g o f events: o u t l i n e o f a
general theory with applications t o psychology. Psychological
Review, 1954, 6 1 , 281-303; A r g y r i s , C,, op c i t ; Katz, D . , and Kahn,
R . L , , op c i t ; IXkert, R,, 1967, op c i t ; M i l l e r , J.G. Living systems:
basic concepts. Behavioral Science, 1965, 10_, 193-237; Parsons, T . ,
The Social System. Glencoe, 1 1 1 . : Free Press, 1951; Schein, E . H , ,
op c i t .
24. Mann, F.C. Studying and c r e a t i n g change: a means t o understanding
s o c i a l organization. I n Research i n I n d u s t r i a l Human Pelations.
Madison, Wis.: I n d u s t r i a l Relations Research Assoc., 1957,'146-167.
25. Burns, T . , and S t a l k e r , G.M, The Management o f Innovation. London:
Tavistock (2nd e d . ) , 1961; Shepard, H . , and Blake, R.R. Changing
behavior through c o g n i t i v e change. Human Organization, Summer, 1962,
2 1 , 88-96.
26. Tannenbaum, A . S . , (Ed.) Control i n Organizations. New York: McGrawH i l l , 1968.
iii