Running head: BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 1

Robles Landscaping Research Paper

ORGL 4361 VO2 Capstone II

Erica Gomez

Dr. Patricia Blanco

BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 2

Robles Landscaping Research Paper

Working any job is hard on its own. Throw in the need for teamwork and it can get even

harder. Working as a team can have a lot of benefits. In the world of landscaping, having a team

means being able to share resources like tools and knowledge. Every person on the team comes

with a different background, different experiences, and their own tips or tricks to share. This can

be really helpful for brainstorming and problem solving. However, working on a team is not

always rainbows and butterflies. Sometimes, teamwork leads to disagreements, head butting, and

tension. Luckily, there are tools out there that can help teams get along better. Some of these

tools come in the form of theories created by deep thinking humans who have used their

backgrounds in psychology and philosophy to formulate some helpful guidelines. Not every

team or manager is the same, and some theories may work better than others depending on the

case. For this project, we will begin by exploring three theories that are all quite different from

one another. The three theories to be explored are the Bureaucratic Theory by Max Weber, the

Administrative Theory by Henri Fayol, and the Human Relations Theory by Elton Mayo.

Past Research on Three Theorists

To better understand each of these various theories, it helps to look back to when the

theories were created, why, and to see what kind of research was being done with them.

Bureaucratic Theory

Max Weber is considered one of the pioneers of social science. During the late 1800s and

early 1900s, Weber was a considered a renowned scholar and a political intellectual. He had a

unique educational and experiential background that combined political science with social

science. Upon observing a change in the landscape of organizations, he began to notice what he
BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 3

felt was a shift away from traditional leadership and towards what he called “rational”

leadership. In this context, traditional leadership was an employee’s tendency to follow the

leader because of that leader’s charisma and air of authority, whereas rational leadership came

from a leader who used logic, reason, and an efficient system of rules, regulations, or procedures

in order to lead people. Weber noticed this natural shift happening, and felt it was a positive and

progressive shift that would lead to more efficiency among organizations. He helped this new

system of leading solidify its place in society by giving it a name and by breaking it down into

features. The three features that he identified were these: bureaucracies have hierarchies that

directly assign power to positions without ambiguity; labor is purposefully and systemically

divided and assigned; all members of the organization follow a set of “formal, explicit,

exhaustive, and largely stable rules” to make decisions by. “This leaves little room for personal

bias or disagreement” (Jain, 2004).

While Weber was largely in support of this bureaucratic approach to running an

organization, he did admit that it could lead to putting employees in what he called an ‘iron cage’

of strict, impersonal rules, and that this could lead to decisions being made that are based on

rules and logic rather than what is better for society. He was by no means the only one to criticize

bureaucracy on the organizational level. Some of Weber’s contemporaries argued that such a

strict adherence to rules and regulations could actually distract companies from their actual goals

by keeping them too focused on just enforcing rules. Researchers began to study the effect of the

bureaucratic organizational approach and the results were not ideal. One researcher found that

the delegation of authority led departments to pursue unrelated goals. Another study revealed that

the bureaucratic approach held organizations back from change and progressing through

innovation. A third study’s results showed that using rules to govern an organization encouraged
BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 4

workers to only do enough to meet the minimum requirements. Yet another researcher observed

“that this kind rule-centric governing would allow for people who knew how to ‘play the game’

to move up the ladder, while people with great potential would fail at reaching the top only

because they did not know how to manipulate the rule system as well” (Jain, 2004). This

criticism all closely followed the emergence of the bureaucratic theory, and yet the theory is still

taught, studied, and used today. Even though it is still relevant today, it has certainly experienced

some change through time. How this system is used and studied today will be discussed further

in a later section.

Administrative Theory

Henri Fayol created his organizational structure theories based on experience and what

worked for him. He argued for a balance between regulations and a consideration for human

relations. He posited that any group which was governed as an organization should be

administrated, whether it be a family living together in a household, a company with employees,

or a state government. He felt that any two organizations that were in the same stage of

expansion was similar enough to each other that they could be efficiently governed by the same

administrative models. Similarly, to the bureaucratic theory, “Fayol’s administrative theory is

based off of using business procedures, hierarchies, rules, and regulations” (Wood, 2002, p. 4-5).

His theory was broken into 14 principles of management, which are as follows: 1)

division of work, which means that each person should specialize in a specific role that remains

relatively consistent; 2) authority and responsibility, which is meant to remind those with

authority that they should not abuse their power to escape responsibility; 3) discipline, which is

meant to be taught, encouraged, and rewarded, rather than enforced through punishment; 4) unity

of command, which holds that a subordinate should have one single boss that they report to and
BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 5

take orders from; 5) unity of direction, which holds that all departments including their leads

should be pursuing the goals laid out by one head with one plan; 6) subordination of personal

interests to general interests, which holds that subordinates should put their personal interests

aside in order to support the organizational interest, which is why it is important to have

employees who fit the culture of the company and value the company’s missions; 7) fair

remuneration, which means that employees are paid fairly in order to reduce tension; 8)

centralization and decentralization, meaning that authority should be delegated in a way that is

most effective for each scenario, and that centralization/decentralization should be adjusted in

consideration to the goals at hand; 9) scalar chain, which keeps the chain of command and

communication flowing efficiently; 10) order, which means that there is a clear and concise

arrangement of resources and who needs them for what so that resource might be used most

efficiently; 11) equity, which calls for the rejection of bias towards people based on sex, religion,

caste, etc., and management is encouraged to be kind and honest to all; 12) stability of use of

personnel, which encourages organizations to keep their teams together and keep their employees

for the long haul; 13) initiative, which encourages managers and employees alike to be open to

new ideas, suggestions, and alternatives; and finally, 14) spirit of cooperation, which allows all

members of the group to feel heard, involved, important, and thus motivated (Edwards, 2018).

As one can see, this is a comprehensive list that covers many bases.

It not only considers the very business side of things like power structures and specialized

positions, but it also specifies the need for good human relations, like fair treatment, taking

responsibility, acting as a team, and paying employees fairly. So even though, at first glance, this

theory seems just as rigid as the last, a closer look shows that Fayol truly believes in the

importance of considering the differences in people’s personal qualities. Rather than strict codes
BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 6

and rules, he published these looser guidelines. He acknowledges the need for progression and

change, for adaptation, and for human relations. “He was also the first to introduce the concept

of offering educational courses that would teach managers how to manage” (Wood, 2002, p. 6).

Human Relations Theory

The first theory that was discussed, the Bureaucratic Theory, is a rigid set of rules,

regulations, and hierarchies that hold little regard for the personal qualities of the humans

working for that organization. That theory represented one extreme in which human relations is

really just not considered at all. The second theory was Fayol’s Administrative Theory, which

could perhaps be considered a more balanced theory that combines rules and hierarchies with

considerations for personal qualities and human relations. This last theory – the Human Relations

theory – takes us back to the extreme side of things, but this time it is on the opposite end of the

spectrum.

Elton Mayo was an Australian researcher in the early 1900s, with a background in

psychology, physiology, and anthropology. Mayo used scientific evidence to encourage industry

leaders to be more considerate of their workers’ psyches. He argued that companies could lower

their turnover rates and increase productivity by improving their human relations with their

employees (President and Fellows of Harvard College). He supported the idea that taking

people’s personal qualities into consideration, building relationships between leaders and

subordinates, and paying attention to the sustainability of a position, was not only the right thing

to do but that it was better for business. Back when the theory was created – and still to this day

– labor unrest was a big problem for organizations. “Strikes, riots, high turnover rates, workers

that only did the minimum, and passive insubordination have all been an unfortunate yet regular

part of organizational challenges” (Knowles, 1958). Thus, human relations swooped in as a

BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 7

possible solution to these kinds of costly disruptions.

Still, despite the existence of publications supporting these theories, the theories would

not do any good until they were implemented on a practical level. “Some of the earlier studies on

this theory focused on how organizations could take the concepts that were being found in

literature and instill them in the actual minds and actions of real-life managers” (Whiting, 1964).

As it was mentioned before, the concept of teaching managers how to manage through formal

education was still quite new. Slowly over time, educating managers became a regular practice,

and entire departments were born in order to ensure that organizations were taking the humans

whom worked for them into consideration. How this theory has grown and evolved over time

will be discussed further in the next section of this paper.

Current Research on Three Theorists

Now that the theories and their pasts have been discussed, it’s time to explore where these

theories are today. Max Weber’s Bureaucratic Theory has largely failed the test of time. It has not

been adopted by organizations of the business type, and it is not being taught to managers as a

recommended practice. However, “its relevancy is in the lessons it held for international policies.

It was not a sufficient guideline for businesses to use, but it does turn out that the suggestions

outlined in Weber’s theories were useful for leaders of organizations dealing with international

politics” (Laiz, 2016).

One of the biggest contributions made by Henri Fayol’s Administrative Theory was the

concept that management could and should be taught like a skill. Organizational management is

now a class that can be taught, a degree that can be earned, and a major part of an organization’s

operations. He introduced the idea that being a good manager is a skill that can be learned,

practiced, and improved upon. “Fayol can be thanked for the fact that organizational
BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 8

management even exists in the form of formal education” (Edwards, 2018). While researchers

today can point out flaws in his theory when it is compared to what we know now, it is easy to

understand why these flaws existed. Fayol’s theory was original, based on his own individual

experience, and created from his own independent thought. There was not anything else for him

to go on. Today, thanks to the foundation he laid, so much more research has been done and

much more has been discovered. Comparing today’s knowledge on organizational management

to Fayol’s theory may make it seem like he fell short of success, but it is important here to

remember that he was the first one to even introduce the idea, so his theory definitely still

deserves respect and praise for paving the way for today’s theories on the subject.

As for Mayo’s theories, his work would lead the way to a revolution in organizational

operations. These days, all it takes is hearing the acronym HRM and anyone who works for an

organization will know that it stands for Human Resource Management. “Entire departments,

laws, and even university degrees now exist to spread the word that treating employees as

humans and looking out for their level of satisfaction at work is essential to the operation of any

organization” (Oconner, 1999). All things considered; one could say that Mayo’s theories was a

major success that has stood the test of time.

Applying the Theories

All of these theories sound good on paper, but none of them are useful until they are put

into action. The implementation phase of a plan is just as important as every other phase of the

plan. In order to demonstrate how to put a theory into action, an example problem will be

described below. The best theory to solve that problem will be chosen, and then it will be

explained how to put that theory into action.

BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 9

Problem

In order to complete this section of the project, I spoke with Ruben Robles, who started

and manages a landscaping company. He manages a team of five people, who often work alone

on their individual jobs, but just as often are asked to come together and complete larger jobs as a

team. Robles told me that he likes to give his team as much autonomy as possible. He gives them

the ability to work as a team to make decisions about how to go about a certain task, what tools

and materials to use, how they want everything to look, and he is happy to provide assistance

when they need it. He likes the idea of empowering and enabling his team, and they seem to like

that too. However, when I asked about what kinds of problems are common for his team, I

discovered that the level of freedom and flexibility being given to the team sometimes led to

disagreements, arguments, resentment, and tension. If the teammates disagreed on which tool

would be best for a job, they would waste precious time and energy butting heads to no avail.

Sometimes they would argue over who has more experience or no-how, and who has righter to

make that decision. His teammates have at times come to him complaining that one person or

another was trying to ‘act like the boss’ on projects they felt more qualified for. He told me he

was not sure how to handle this problem.

Solution

After exploring the three theories and how they could apply, it seemed that the best

theory to apply came from some of the principles in Fayol’s Administrative Theory. By giving

the team some structure and guidance, Robles could help prevent his team from forming

resentment due to things like a lack of a clear hierarchy or a lack of explicit direction. For

example, the 1st principle in Fayol’s theory holds that a clear division of work where each

employee specializes in a certain set of responsibilities helps give structure and consistency to
BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 10

the organization. Thus, it is suggested that for each project, a team lead should be assigned by

Robles, based on his knowledge of each members qualifications. If one teammate is most

experienced with installing irrigation systems, that teammate will always be the lead on those

projects. Applying the 4th principle called Unity of Command, along with the 9th principle called

the Scalar, one can see that it is helpful to require that all questions from crew mates will go

through a specified person and that person would then report to Robles. I was sure to tell Robles

to consider the 2nd principle, which is authority and responsibility. While his intentions seem

good, taking a fully hands-off approach as a manager can come off as failing to take

responsibility. He wants to empower his team while also demonstrating that he is still in charge

and taking action. Also, it is important to remember that in addition to this principle that

encourage structure and order, there are also principles like number 13, which specifically

encourages employees to take initiative and exercise their creative freedoms (Edwards, 2018).

As one can see, taking these measures to set up these structures and to apply these

principles does not necessarily take the autonomy and creative freedom away from the crew.

What it does do is take the distraction of complex power dynamics and bias out of the picture. At

the same time, there is enough flexibility and faith given to each crew member that they each feel

fulfilled, valued, and loyal to the organization. Thus, it is suggested that Robles and his team use

the Administrative Theory as their guide in order to solve their problem.

BUSINESS RESEARCH PAPER 11

Reference

Edwards, Raymond. “An Elaboration of the Administrative Theory of the 14 Principles of

Management by Henri Fayol.” International Journal for Empirical Education and

Research, 2018, pp. 41–52., doi:10.35935/edr/21.5241.

Jain, A. “Using the Lens of Max Webers Theory of Bureaucracy.” 37th Annual Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of The, 2004,

doi:10.1109/hicss.2004.1265321.

Knowles, William H. “Human Relations in Industry: Research and Concepts.” California

Management Review, vol. 1, no. 1, 1958, pp. 87–105., doi:10.2307/41165339.

Laiz, Álvaro Morcillo, and Klaus Schlichte. “Rationality and International Domination:

Revisiting Max Weber.” International Political Sociology, vol. 10, no. 2, 2016, pp. 168–

184., doi:10.1093/ips/olw004.

Oconnor, Ellen. “Minding the Workers: The Meaning of `Human and `Human Relations in Elton

Mayo.” Organization, vol. 6, no. 2, 1 May 1999, pp. 223–246.,

doi:10.1177/135050849962004.

President and Fellows of Harvard College. “Enter Elton Mayo.” Enter Elton Mayo – The Human

Relations Movement – Baker Library | Bloomberg Center, Historical Collections,

Harvard Business School Baker Library, www.library.hbs.edu/hc/hawthorne/04.html.

Whiting, R. J. “Historical Search in Human Relations.” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 7,

no. 1, 1964, pp. 45–53., doi:10.2307/255233.

Wood, John C. Henri Fayol Critical Evaluations in Business and Management. Routledge, 2002.