Keele ID: 10019525/1 Subject Code: MAN20055 Option 3 Evaluate the statement that organizational structure reflects and

reinforces an unrealistic view of human rationality (Knights & Wilmot, 2007). Organizational structure is the arrangement of relationship between the posts and members in the organization. Structure allows the process of management and it creates the scaffold of order and command through all the activities of the organization that can be planned, organized, directed and controlled. Structure plays an important role in the organization, whatever sizes it may be, because it defines work and responsibilities, work roles and relationships and channel of communication. The purpose of this report is to evaluate and show that the structure in the organization emphasize an unrealistic view of human rationality. Rationalism is the theory that reasons the foundation of certainty in knowledge. In a society, good and well-structured organization does not produce good performance by itself. On the other hand, a poor organization structure makes good performance impossible. The outline of this report will begin to emphasize on the contribution and limitation to the mainstream of organizational structure follow by the critical approaches and how influential is the classic management and structure being practice in this modern work place.

First and foremost, the contributions of mainstream approaches of an organization is that, the structure is to determine the behaviour and lifestyle at work so that it must be sure that it is constructed, reconstructed or re-engineered to be fitted well in the environment. Stephen Ackroyd (2002) concludes that the mainstream approach to organizational structure should be removed because it is incompetent of understanding contemporary patterns of organizational change. Based on the behaviour and lifestlye argument, designs and structures are very useful for organizations to survive by facilitating their adaptation to the environment. It refracts attention from the power relations that underlie the structure and precludes any understanding of how organizations organize and enact their environments rather than simply responding to them (Knights and Willmott, 2007). Generally, the systematic framework is commonly drawn where the system in use is closed or open, the inputs which refer to labour, resources, and policies are processed to produce the necessary outputs such as profit or goods and services. In the organizational structure, harmony is acknowledged within the organizations and it is just a matter of constructing and tolerating a rationality defensible ordering of hierarchical of work relationships. Although there are various variety of different analytical approaches, they are however concerns to show how the organization is determined by the environment and the structures, usually defining the roles and responsibilities of how

Keele ID: 10019525/1 Subject Code: MAN20055 they reproduce the current organizational arrangements (Ranson, Hinings and Greenwood, 1980). However, with the innovations and technologies that exist nowadays, most of the people still share the same belief in finding the one best way to structure and organize activities in the society.

On the other side of the coin, the limitations of the orthodox approaches is that it reflects and emphasizes a practical rationality that is unlikely realistic to be achieved by oneself and their failure to appreciate the importance of inequality and power in the organizations structure. The mainstream tends to look into power possessed by individuals, groups or institutions. Power is the mean to enhance the managerial control in an organization and to ensure that decision making is not interfered by any disruptions (Knights and Willmott, 2007). It is one of the negative factors that constraints or control the operations because power preserves its boundaries and due to their weak understanding of the significance of identity, freedom and insecurity in the reproduction of features of organizational life that is characterized as structure in mainstream analysis. One can assume that the working styles and behaviour in the organization follows from the formal structure of decision making without any disruption and there must be conflict that occurred because they have no say in any decision making but only follow the procedure and job regulations at workplace. As for those who are at the top levels of the hierarchy, they might take material and figurative privileges for granted with their existing positions in the hierarchical structure (Knights and Willmott, 2007). When the superiors are dominating the organization by utilizing company resources, it will portray an inequality between superiors and subordinates. Next, when the entire organization is suppose to focus in achieving goals which themselves are taken as given. Alvesson and Willmott (1992) have both shown that the value is viewed as beyond rationality.

The critical approaches arise by inverting ideas by arguing that within the mainstream, it argues that system thinking creates an abstracted set of conceptions about organization that marginalize the human and political dimensions of organization and management. It tends to compromise social balance as the norm in organizations such as conflict during work and this is regarded as an eccentricity that managers must eliminate and convert into productive channels (Knights and Willmott, 2007). Yet, most of these conflicts are usually avoidable and easily resolvable. The cause of conflict arise from simple misunderstanding, poor communication, ineffective management styles and poor leadership. Every organization and workplace including corporation, universities, non-profit organizations and government

Keele ID: 10019525/1 Subject Code: MAN20055 agencies generate chronic conflicts and for this reason, in every conflict that they experience at work, it will provide opportunity to improve and expand the effectiveness of the organization (Wiley, 2005).

Taylor and scientific management, Ford and the assembly line influence modern organizational structures. Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford implemented their ideas and shared a belief in rationalism that if one understands something, one should be able to state it clearly and to write a law or a rule of it. Thus, the results of developing and applying rules and procedures are there to replace uncertainty and conflicts in the organization. One of the major approaches of work rationalization is that scientific management or Taylorism focuses on the transformation of the work piece (Gill, 1985). Scientific management is a form of job design theory and practice which cut short the work cycles by divided into detailed and prescribed task sequences in order to minimize the resources and maximize the production output (Taylor, 1917). For example, to turn pieces of wood into a piece of furniture, there are several processing stages where the wood needs to go through. In another words, Taylors mainly focus on the design of jobs rather than the organizational structure. Nevertheless, his thinking has huge implications for how an organization are structured and coordinated.

Fordism working organization is worked under the same operational methods and timing is based on time-and-motion method with a slight modification. Usually in Fordism organization, the Centralized Engineering Department organizes the shop floor, unskilled labour is replaced by multiskilled labour. Basically the system of the whole organization emphasized on disciplined and the position of supervisors are primarily disciplinary (Durand, Stewart and Castillo., 1999). Ritzer (1993) claimed that the procedure of McDonaldization was affecting many aspects in our social and organizational lives, through the McDonalds approach of processing, he realized that the standardization of goods and services with its routinization can increase the efficiency, calculability, predictability and the workers are able to perform a limited range of tasks in a specifically detailed way. As an example, McDonalds are using high work specialization to efficiently make and sell hamburgers and fries (Robbins, Millett and Waters-Marsh, 2004).

In all working organizational structure, it is defined as social arrangements for accomplishing controlled performance in pursuit of collective goals. The purpose of this organization structure is to divide the organizational activities and allocate them into sub-

Keele ID: 10019525/1 Subject Code: MAN20055 units, then, to co-ordinate and control all the activities so that they are able to achieve the goals of the organization. Willmott (2007) defined the organization structure as the sum of the way in which it divides its labour into different job tasks in order to complete job tasks and further achieve proficiency between themselves (Mintzberg, 1979). Classic organization also known as closed system where there is no attention paid to external factors such as the changes of market, lifestyle and fashion. It believes in the possibility of identifying principles of organization that have universal applicability.

According to Alvesson, Donaldson (1985) and Mintzberg (1983) states that organizational variables such as goals, adaptability, centralization, formalization, specialization and technology, together with sub-coordination such as administration, authority and corporate culture have been taught to seize an organizations character and ways of managing. Firstly, specialization is when all the work activities and division of labours are being specialized with knowledge in a complex organization to make tasks easier. Formalization plays an important role in the organization, as all the employees have to obey and follow the job rules and regulations. Departmentalization is the process of grouping employees who share the same knowledge background or supervisors and resources in order to achieve the highest efficiency in the organization (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004). Span of control and hierarchy are closely related because where the broader of span of control is, the lesser the number of levels in the hierarchy is needed (Buchanan and Huczynski, 2004). Usually when the instructions are being passed down from the top to the bottom management, it is called chain of command. Centralization is when it comes to decision-making, the authority goes to managers at the top of an organizations hierarchy. The advantage of centralization is the top level managers are more aware of the companys future plans and they are able to make decisions in its best interests (Meyer, 1977). Meanwhile, it can fasten the working production by cutting short the planning and reporting procedures that are required.

There are many organizations in current society that are still applying these elements in their organizational structure. For instance, CIMB Bank Berhad worked in systematic working structure, where the hierarchy of the organization plays a very important role and they involve rules and job regulations in work. For example, board of directors sit at the top of hierarchy followed by group chief executives then to different division of banking department and offices (Anonymous, 2008). On the other hand, modern organizational structure adapts the structure to the situations by finding a good fit with the demands and constraints of the

Keele ID: 10019525/1 Subject Code: MAN20055 environment. They will do the right thing to suit the right time by doing experiments and innovation as a way of adapting to change.

In a nutshell, it can be concluded that organizational structure is vital and essential in constructing a well balanced organization. Without any structure in an organization, it can cause chaos and this will lead to an unorganized lifestyle within the department or work place. In order for an organization to run smoothly, there must be some form of structure to keep the harmony between superiors and subordinates to increase efficency and proficiency in the organization. Structure is the beating heart in an organization, because it help enhances the performance of the employers and employees and thus resulting in a positive enviroment for the organization to progress further. With a well organized structure within the organization, it can further reduce conflict, unaccepted behaviour, inequality as well as alienation amongst the workers. Hence, organizational structure does in fact reflect and reinforces an unrealistic view of human rationality.

(1840 words)

Keele ID: 10019525/1 Subject Code: MAN20055

References: 1. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H., 1992. Communication Power & Organization. Berlin: WB-Druck GmbH. Rieden am Forggensee. 2. Buchanan, D. and Huczynski, A., 2004. Organizational Behaviour An Introductory Text. 5th ed. England: Pearson Education Limited. 3. Durand, J.P., Stewart, P. and Castillo, J.J., 1999. Teamwork in the Automobile Industry: Radical Change or Passing Fashion. Basingstoke: Macmillan Business. 4. Gill, C., 1985. Work, Unemployment and the New Technology. Cambridge: Polity Press. 5. Hanson, S., Hinings, Bob. and Greenwood, Royston., 1980. The Structuring of Organizational Structures. New York: Cornell University. 6. Knights, D. and Willmott, H., 2007. Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management. London: Thomson Learning. 7. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W., 1969. Organization and Environment. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 8. Meyer, M. W., 1977. Theory of Organizational Structure. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 9. Ritzer, G., 1993. The McDonaldization of Society. An Investigation into the Changing Character of Contemporary Social Life. California: Pine Forge Press. 10. Robbins, S. P., Millett, B. and Waters-Marsh, T., 2004. Organisational Behaviour. 4th ed. New South Wales: Pearson Prentice Hall. 11. Taylor, F. W., 1917. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper. 12. Welcome to CIMB [Online] (Cited n.d.)

Available at: http://www.cimb.com/annual_reports/CIMB/2005/grouporgchart.htm [Accessed on 22nd October 2011] 13. Wiley, J., 2005. Resolving Conflicts at Work. Eight Strategies for Everyone on the Job. California: Jossey-Bass