Organizational Theory in Healthcare

Organizations Report
Table of contents
Introduction
Contingency theory of organization
Institutional theory of organization
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

In every organization, specific behavioral patterns exist within its premises that guide
how activities occur. Organizational theories explain the relationships between the
business and its environment and how it affects its operation mode (Ferdous, 2016).
Organizations apply various approaches that facilitate functionality and effectiveness
within their operations

Healthcare organizations have gone through extreme transformations during the last
few decades. This has been done in parallel to the mounting pressures that these
organizations have faced in the same duration of time. The origin of the pressures is
both from internal and external sources which have in turn affected the manner in which
the organizations are run, structured and organized.

When it comes to organizational management, healthcare organizations function in a

similar manner like any other organization. Organizational theories help to explain how
organizations function and how they are structured in the face of internal and external
forces. This paper extends the application of organizational theory to the healthcare
organizations.
Specifically, the contingency and institutional theories of organization will be examined
and applied to the healthcare sector. The theories will explain how the healthcare sector
is transformed, organized and restructured to achieve organizational goals even in the
face of uncertain and dynamic environments.

Contingency Theory of Organization

The phrase contingency theory was invented by Lawrence and Lorsch in 1967, even
though the previous work of Burns and Stalker and Woodward facilitated the laying of its
foundation.

The fundamental thesis of contingency theory of organization is that there is no one

effective means of organizing but rather the structure of an organization that will
facilitate its best performance is determined by the characteristics of the environment
within which it exists. In other words, the best structure for an organization is dependent
on elements of its environment.

These elements are called contingencies, or contingency variables, and include size,
technology, geography and uncertainty. Elements of the organizational structure that
are dependent on these environmental features include “the degree of formalization,
differentiation, decentralization, and integration” (Johnson, 2009, p. 50).

The entire organization does not experience similar contingencies, but instead a
number of sub-departments within the organization experience varied environments and
contingencies.

As a result, structural characteristics may also be different. Johnson (2009) argues that,
“the greater the variation of environments faced by individual sub-units within the
organization, the greater the need for differentiation, and so the greater subsequent
demand on coordination and control,” (p. 51). Therefore, the contingency theory of
organization operates at both the departmental and organizational levels.
As the complexity and uncertainty of an organization’s environment increase, there is a
greater demand for information processing within the organization. This implies that as
the organization becomes more and more complex and uncertain, it requires more
effective means of processing information.

In the process, the organization’s structural features including formalization, hierarchy,

and decentralization should be structured to optimize information processing.

The contingency theory assumes that in any organization, there is the existence of an
original state of fit between the organization and its environment. When one of the
organization’s contingency variables changes, a misfit between the organization and its
environment occurs and the organization is then forced to adapt its structure so as to fit
with the environment.

As organizations engage in the process of adaptation, their environments influence how

they differentiate their internal structures and units. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) argued
that environmental forces include geographical, economic, technological, and political
aspects. These elements force organizations to differentiate structure within the
organization as a response to the environmental factors.

This differentiation in turn generates internal fragmentation. The central administration

of the organization works to enhance integration by undertaking activities that aim at
improving efficiency or productivity. Nonetheless, the integration is sometimes irrational
and based on a pre-determined order and governed by political processes instead of
certain idyllic and the best possible choice process (Covrig, 2005).

The contingency theory posits that different organizational forms can adapt to the same
environment. Those organizations that adapt most readily have the advantage.
Adaptation includes achieving an effective balance between the organization’s external
environment and internal strategies similar to managed care and iron triangle.
In healthcare organizations, internal strategies include possessing the appropriate
technology at the appropriate time, maintaining and hiring appropriate skill levels of
individuals, and ensuring that those individuals perform the right tasks at the right time.
The theory suggests that the organizations most likely to survive are those that are the
most effective at making such adaptations (Johnson, 2009).

The term contingency refers to an event that may occur but that is not likely or intended;
a possibility that must be prepared for. As such, contingency is about possessing the
knowledge, skills and abilities to respond to a changing situation. Analyzing and
responding to the contingencies that influence leader effectiveness may provide one
with the ability to succeed in an ever-changing healthcare environment.

Healthcare leadership is about stepping up in times of uncertainty and moving forward

to minimize potential threats and exploit opportunities. The leader who is able to
respond to ever-increasing levels of environmental uncertainty through the utilization of
more than one style of leadership will be most likely to increase employees’ levels of
motivation, satisfaction and productivity (Bokowski, 2009).

Institutional Theory of Organization

The institutional theory of organization addresses one major issue: “why so many
organizations are so similar and how the organizations relate to their environments”
(Meyer & Rowan, 1991; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Scott, 1995).

The institutional theory is expanded to take into consideration more complex

organizational events such as “organizational change and diffusion, conflicting
institutional environments, the instability of mimetic isomorphism compared to other
sources of isomorphism,” (Bloom, Alexander, Lerman & Norrish, 1994, p. 322). The
theory is widely applicable to healthcare organizations.
One of its chief contributions to the healthcare sector is the provision of a framework
that can be used to explain why healthcare organizations adopt innovations and how
the adoption is diffused throughout the organization (Tolbert & Zucker, 1983).

Before Tolbert and Zucker published their article, majority of the research studies
conducted on innovation focused mainly on the characteristics of individuals, particularly
those who were early adopters of inventions. Adoption of innovations at the
organizational level is a far more multifaceted procedure.

The institutional theory is widely applicable to the healthcare organizations for instance,
in the adoption of total quality management of organizations and in the prevention of
HIV infections by drug abuse rehabilitation centres.

Another contribution of institutional theory to healthcare involves providing explanation

for the complexity of the environment in which some health organizations such as
hospitals operate in for instance the technical and institutional settings (Bloom et al.,
1994).

From this point of view, the institutional theory helps to explain the challenging technical
and institutional environments of healthcare organizations which in turn determine how
the organizations will carry out its staffing processes.

For instance, if a new medical innovation is introduced to a healthcare organization, the

organization will have to undertake strategies that will ensure the utmost and efficient
utilization of the innovation. A good example is the introduction of electronic medical
records. The introduction of EMRs will force a healthcare organization to shift from
manual record processing to electronic record processing.

The organization may thus be forced to cut down on the number of employees who had
been employed to carry out the manual record processing because the technology can
do a lot of the work within a short period of time.
On the other hand, the organization will either be forced to train its retained workforce or
hire a workforce that is familiar, knowledgeable and experienced in using EMRs (Follen,
Castaneda, Mikelson, Johnson, Wilson, & Higuchi, 2007). Either way, the structure of
the organization has been influenced by the new environment in which it is operating.

Institutional theorists emphasize that organizations encounter environments that are

characterized by external customs, regulations and conditions with which the
organizations must comply so as to maintain legality and support.

Whereas technical environments reward organizations for effective and efficient

performance, institutional environments emphasize rewarding organizations for having
structures and processes that are in conformance with the environment. The rules,
beliefs and norms of the external environment are often expressed in the form of
rational myths.

Such myths are rational in the sense of being reflected in professional standards, laws,
and licensure and accreditation requirements but are myths in the sense that they
cannot necessarily be verified empirically. They are nonetheless, widely held to be true.

Conformity with these myths helps the organization to gain legitimacy and support. This
conformance is often referred to as “isomorphism” and causes organizations faced with
a similar set of environmental circumstances to resemble each other.

Health services organizations are experiencing a rapid transformation of both their

technical and institutional environments. The increased technical pressure for greater
efficiency and quality expressed in terms of value is causing health services
organizations to change long-established structures.

This is reflected in the reorganization of acute care hospitals as they attempt to become
components of more vertically integrated health systems and the development of new
norms and beliefs about what constitutes the effective delivery of health care.
This transition results in a great deal of internal conflict that must be managed. An
example of the application of institutional theory to healthcare sector entails efforts in
continuous quality improvement as a response to newly emerging norms and practices
within the health services sector (Shortell & Kaluzny, 1997).

Quality improvement is a concept that is extensively applied in the healthcare sector so

as to improve patient safety and quality of care provided. This is as a result of mounting
pressures not only from policymakers but also from civil rights groups and the patients
themselves.

In order to achieve this, healthcare organizations must restructure their organizations in

a manner that will make patient safety and quality of care a realized goal. This entails
management commitment, employee empowerment and fact-based decision making.

With regard to management commitment, the management of the organization needs to

demonstrate its commitment by developing the strategies for undertaking the initiative
based on the vision and mission of the organization. Management commitment is also
demonstrated through the creation of the quality improvement teams that oversee the
quality improvement initiative.

The commitment of the management is important because it serves as an example for

the rest of the organization’s partners to follow (Narine & Persaud, 2003). Regarding
employee empowerment, various forms of empowerment such as education, training
and staff development can be undertaken.

Empowerment is important because it enables the employees to make the right

decisions that serve the best interests of the residents (Wong & Chung, 2005).

Last but not least, fact-based decision making entails continuous data collection and
analysis to determine the performance of the medical staff as well as the effectiveness
of the quality improvement program. Based on the reports, appropriate actions are
taken by the facility to improve the residents’ health (Calomeni, Solberg & Conn, 1999).
Conclusion

Healthcare organizations have gone through remarkable transformations in the past few
decades. Some of these transformations entail the adoption of advanced medical
technologies, the shift away from traditional care practices to contemporary care
practices; and organizational restructuring and re-engineering.

These transformations have in part been driven by the organizations’ clients who have
become more enlightened and in part by external forces such as new policies. As a
result, healthcare organizations have been mandated to alter their internal and external
structures in addition to their care delivery processes. The transformation of healthcare
organizations can be explained by various organizational theories.

This paper has focused on the application of the contingency theory and institutional
theory of organization to healthcare organizations. The theories have helped to explain
why healthcare organizations undertake certain strategies and how they respond to
changes in the environments in which they operate.

Reference List

Bloom, J. R., Alexander, J. A., Lerman, S., & Norrish, B. (1994). Institutional and
environmental influences on staffing strategies. Dallas, TX: Academy of Management.

Bokowski, N. (2009). Organizational behaviour, theory and design in health care.

Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
Organization Theory Improving
Healthcare Operations
Topic: Health & Medicine Words: 881 Pages: 3 Aug 26th, 2022

Introduction
In every organization, specific behavioral patterns exist within its premises that guide
how activities occur. Organizational theories explain the relationships between the
business and its environment and how it affects its operation mode (Ferdous, 2016).
Organizations apply various approaches that facilitate functionality and effectiveness
within their operations. The paper examines how classical, neo-classical, and
modern organizational theories play a crucial role in improving functions in an
organization.

Learn more

Classical Organizational Theories

Classical organizational theories are the traditional theories explaining the process
and behavior of organizations. These theories entail examining the foundation of
organizations and viewing the business as a unit with employees as a part of this
unit (Haveman & Wetts, 2019). The classical theories include the scientific
management approach theory, Webber’s bureaucratic theory, and administrative
approach theory. The division of labor in an organization: through specialization, an
organization can define the tasks and responsibilities of each employee (Haveman &
Wetts, 2019). In health care institutions, divisions and labor and precise definition of
tasks help improve employees’ performance. Classical theory improves operations in
organizations through the coordination of activities. The departments within an
organization must work in harmony to meet the set objectives and goals. Classical
organizational theory encourages various tasks and activities into departments for
easier management (Ferdous, 2016). Creating departments that handle the diverse
functions facilitates an overall improvement in how operations occur within the
organization. Organizations ensure better coordination of activities in the
departments as proposed by the classical organizational theory.

Classical organization theory improves an organization’s operations by creating

relationships between the management and subordinates. The hierarchy of
relationships in organizations facilitates communication, which helps define each
person’s duties and responsibilities and the delegation of responsibilities by the
superiors in the organization (Dörrenbächer & Geppert, 2017). Functional processes
define how an organization creates a hierarchy of relationships that helps to define
authority. The classical theory proposes organizations employ a basic structure that
defines the relationships among the different elements (Ferdous, 2016). Designing
positions in the organization facilitates the division of tasks and delegation of
authority, improving the efficiency with which the employees accomplish tasks.
Efficiency ensures organizational effectiveness.

Neo-Classical Organization Theory

The neo-classical organization theory examines the behavioral aspect of the human
element in organizations. The neo-classical organizational theory promotes an
understanding of human behavior and how people impact the activities in
organizations affecting the effectiveness of the businesses (Őnday, 2016). An
organization can be considered a social system made up of many elements that
interact with one another and must coordinate to ensure that it can achieve its goals.
Neo-classical organizational theory helps to understand the relationship between the
goals of an organization and the goals of employees to reconcile them, which is
essential in improving the effectiveness of operations (Birken et al., 2017). All
activities within an organization involve the interaction of the human element with the
tasks and activities. People impact the organization’s success as they are
responsible for accomplishing tasks and activities (Blanco, 2017). Organizations can
achieve higher effectiveness in their operations when they can understand the
relationship between employees, including teamwork. Communication between the
personnel in an organization is an essential part of ensuring high productivity in
operations. The neo-classical organization theory helps in understanding the
importance of the human element in an organization.

Modern Organizational Theories

Modern organization theory comprises two theories: contingency theory and systems
approach theory. System approach theory proposes examining an organization as a
system with numerous parts that interrelate to facilitate operations (Teece, 2019). In
organizations, all the factors are considered systems that work towards attaining the
set goals and objectives, but they function independently. The functions in an
organization work towards achieving the overall goal, but each is different from the
rest. The organization is flexible to accommodate the needs of the environment in
which it operates to achieve its goals. System approach theory helps to improve the
operations in an organization through understanding the nature of the
interdependence that exists within the different parts and how to improve the diverse
processes (Teece, 2019).

Organizations encounter problems that require several ways for the management to
them accordingly. The contingency approach theory proposes that an organization
can adopt practices to solve its problems based on its nature. There are no two
challenges that are the same (Boehe, 2016). In contingency theory, the
management of an organization can make the best decision that will suit the
organization’s situation. Various factors in the business environment impact the
operations of an organization, including both internal and external. The
unpredictability of an organization’s problems makes it challenging to develop
solutions that apply to all situations. Hence, organizations must develop suitable
solutions that will help tackle the organization’s challenges (Boehe, 2016).
Contingency approach theory helps improve operations as it provides for the
management of the health organization to develop solutions that fit the facility’s
problems.

Conclusion
Numerous theories are applicable in organizations to boost functionality and
efficiency. The theories help to explain the importance of the processes and behavior
patterns within the organization. Organizations utilize different theories since there is
no single theory that can cater to all the organization’s needs. Knowledge of
organizational theories is vital for management as it plays a huge role in elevating
various activities’ performance; it facilitates organizations’ functions such as decision-
making, communication, and delegation of authority.

Organisational behaviour in Salford schools

✅ Paper Type: Free Essay ✅ Subject: Business

✅ Wordcount: 3390 words ✅ Published: 9th May 2017

Reference this

Share this: Facebook Twitter Reddit LinkedIn WhatsApp

I originate from France and have now lived in England for two years. While in France, I
obtained a degree in English Language and worked as a teaching assistant for children
with special educational needs. Since coming to England, I have been employed by
Salford City Council to work as a Modern Foreign Language Assistant in three primary
schools.

As my studies background was not business oriented, I have no academic knowledge of

Organisational Behaviour. However I personally believe that my working experience as a
teacher has allowed me to have a glance at this field. Indeed, according to a definition
given in the lecture handout, organisational behaviour is “a study of individual and
group behaviour in organisations and organisations themselves that aims to
understand, predict and control individuals’ behaviour to improve organisational
performance and effectiveness “. In a way, I had to be aware of the different cultural,
familial and intellectual backgrounds of my students to organise a variety of resources
and adapt my teaching styles accordingly in order to improve the performance of the
students and of the school as a whole.

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is
here to help!

Essay Writing Service

I am a hard working individual who is willing to learn. Therefore , my main objectives to

pass this module are: firstly, to attend every lectures, secondly to read as many
recommended books and further readings as possible, and lastly to question every
aspect treated in class and try to apply them in real life experiences. From my personal
development, my objective is to go out from the strict scholar mould which consists at
memorising various concepts and rewriting them during the exam in favour of
broadening my knowledge by scrutinising the current environment and actualities in
order to discern how theories learnt in class may be applicable or rejected.

Part two: Learning experience in Organisational Behaviour module.

Week one, 01,Oct 2010 : Introduction to OB
The first session was aimed at giving students knowledge of what is organisational
behaviour. Organisational behaviour is a field that requires applying different theories
and putting them into practices in order to better understand the behaviours of the
individuals working in an organisation. The lecture has underlined the importance of
theories and experiences. Indeed, they give an overall understanding of people’s
behaviour and allow managers to respond effectively and with more flexibility in order
to improve the company’s performance.

I personally think that it is an important discipline as it appears to be the key for

successful managerial decisions. Managers should cleverly understand the best assets of
any organisations, the employees. Indeed, according to Shuler, R. S and Jackson, S.E
(1999: 435), “A key component of every organizational system is its human resources”.
Employees are the essential “material” for a company and without them, no work can be
executed.

At the end of this introduction lecture, I felt quite motivated to study the discipline more
in details as I believe that studying behaviour is challenging and enormously complex.
As Subramanya Sarma V.V. (1997: 1) points out “the behaviour of human being is
unpredictable”.

Week two,08 Oct 2010 : Approaches to organisational

behaviour
We discussed, through group presentations, several approaches that a company may
follow to manage its workforce .The approaches were scientific management,
Bureaucracy, Human Relations, Contingency, systemic, postmodernism.

All approaches have advantages but drawbacks too. For example, I believe that a
management system based on bureaucracy would have more difficulties to have a
flexible response to environmental changes and the Taylorism approach would create a
bad atmosphere in which money is the only driving force while human relations
management would be an open door to resistance and disorder. I come to the
conclusion that all these approaches should be gathered to create “the “perfect
management style.

I suddenly realise that I was faced to a similar situation while teaching in England.
Indeed, I was hesitant on the teaching method to follow as it was the first time I had to
teach in a different country. Therefore I experienced different styles to each class and
the results were that in the class where I applied strict rules, the atmosphere was
negative and students were looking forward ending the class while in another class I
took more attention to my students, listening to their wants and the class went
perfectly. What is interesting here is that in France, only strict teaching methods worked
for me and freedom created chaos in my class. Therefore I may underline that culture
has to be taken into account when deciding of the best managerial approach because
each culture may react differently.

Week three, 15 Oct 2010: Perceptions and communication

in organisations
According to the lecture’s handout, perception is a “psychological process responsible
for attending to, organizing and interpreting sensory data”. Perceptions are unique, that
is to say that people have different perceptions of a same situation based on their own
experiences, their personalities and the environment they are part of. Therefore,
perceptions can not be accurate and there is a huge space for judgmental opinion and
discrimination. Indeed, even without noticing it, managers can have a negative and
distorted image of an employee, especially during the recruiting process.

This idea leads me to question a French saying: “the first impression is always the best”.
Indeed, one may wonder how to be sure that the impression one has at first sight is
accurate if perception differs according to experiences? Some people are judged
negatively at first sight, without even talking. Therefore, it is not how people perceive
the world that causes this, but more how people communicate, verbally or not, to each
other. In this first case, body language plays an essential role. People must be aware of
their body language if they want to be perceived positively. The difficulty is added on a
cross-cultural context as body language differs from one country to another and
international businessmen have to be conscious of their postures, their gestures or their
presentations.

From my personal experience, I can say that I am faced to ineffective communication

everyday: my partner’s mother tongue is Arabic, mine is French but as none of us
understand our respective language, we communicate in English. I acknowledge that
this has brought some issues. Indeed, we may use an intonation or automatically
translate words from our mother tongue into English that appear to sound very
disrespectful and not appropriate sometimes. I am convinced that arguments would
have been avoided if both of us were clearly aware and understanding of our differences
in communication.
Week four, 22 Oct 2010: Individuals differences and
diversity in organisations
Diversity is qualified by Mullins (2005) as people “who hold different perspectives and
views; bringing different quality to the workplace; having different aspirations and
having different customs and tradition.”

Managing diversity appears to be extremely challenging as managers needs to be aware

of cross-cultural and personalities differences in order to effectively compete in a
business scene. However, as mentioned in Roosevelt Thomas,R.(1991:ix), “diverse
workforce is not a burden, but their greatest potential strengths”. I am convinced that
diversity is strength for the performance of organisations as it brings creativity,
innovations and proves the organisation’s ability to be flexible in their management
style. Various organisations in the United Kingdom have understood this importance
and have applied a precise diversity management style such as HSBC or B&Q. Their aims
are to avoid discrimination and to provide equal rights for everyone. However, I tend to
think that, contradictorily, this is a form of discrimination. Indeed, by avoiding
discrimination over a certain type of workers and privileging them, the company
automatically discriminate the other part of the workforce. I come to the conclusion that
an effective diversity management is not achieved by privileging the workers who are
most often discriminated, but recruiting staff regardless of any past prejudices.
Recruitment has not to be limited to one single criterion or comply with the
organisation required diversity statistics. I was very pleased to read that one company
share the same view. Indeed, according to the Telegraph, the Guinness care and support
has refused to pay its staff for over time during Christmas day and Boxing Day this year
as it is seen as discriminatory towards other employees from diverse religions which
have to work during their own sacred celebrations.

Week five ,29 Oct 2010: Team work

The reading on this topic interested me tremendously, mainly due to the fact that I have
various experiences of it.

First of all, I learned that a group, either formal or informal, involves interdependency
among the individuals. (Mc Kenna, 1994) Individuals within groups share common
values and attitudes (religion, politics, lifestyle, marriage, work…) and strive towards
mutual aims and objectives. This idea is part of Newcomb’s balance theory of group
formation mentioned in Luthans(2002:465) . According to Mc Kenna (1994:314), groups
are usually formed for three main reasons: Firstly, as a human desire to expand relations
with others and to feel united in case of problems or unpredictable events. Secondly, as
a desire to share experience and be guided. Lastly, the reason will be for an individual to
stimulate his/her sense of leadership or oppositely to be depended and hidden behind
others. From an organisational point of view, groups can also be formed by managers as
a way to install team work.

I believe that forming groups is excellent to increase effectiveness and achieve better
results. Indeed, workers feel more motivated because they feel highly involved in the
company, especially if they are self-managed team. What is more, I suppose that an
individual has better chance to increase his/her capacities and knowledge when part of
a group. The reason is that a group have the function to guide all members towards a
common success especially when the fall of someone leads automatically to the fall of
the entire group.

These positive points that I have enumerated are issued from my personal experience as
a primary school teacher. Working in pairs or small groups, have permitted everyone in
my classes to be involved in the lesson. I installed this method as I noticed few pupils
who were too shy to participate. With such method, the pupils will no longer do an
individual work but contribute to the success or the failure of his team members.
Therefore, this technique has allowed them to be involved in the lesson and I could
observe, during the group work time, that they were adding their contributions to the
groups and more surprisingly, that one of these shy children was actually the most
advanced pupil in French.

Week 8 , 19 Nov 2010: Contemporary leadership ideas

The class discussed about the various type of leaders, the necessity or not to have a
leader and the perception of leadership in a cross-cultural environment. There is
however, one point mentioned in class that drew my attention. In the definition of an
authentic leader, the theory designs four main characteristics that compose an authentic
leader: balanced processing (paying attention to various views before giving the final
decision), Internalised moral perspective (applying personal values and principles in
decisions), relational transparency (always mentioning the truth) and self awareness
(Walumbwa et al 2008 cited in the lecture’s handout). However I tend to question the
third point which implies telling the truth. Indeed, most of the recognised leaders in
politics are reputed for their tendency not to honour promises. It became a normal
phrase for many people to say that politicians are manipulating and lying to citizens.
There is one recent example which supports this idea. The telegraph has declared that
Nick Clegg admitted that he broke the vow on tuitions fees. Indeed, the Liberal
Democrat Deputy Prime Minister formerly collected votes from the student audience as
he presented himself as against any rise in tuition fee. He and all his party’s Mps had
signed a pledge with the National Union of students before the election in May 2010
but the decision on increasing tuition fees has been passed which has provoked violent
demonstrations and Martin Horwood, one of the Democrat Mp was termed as a “liar” by
the crowd. In conclusion, transparency cannot be an attribute for leaders as I am
convinced that if Nick Clegg has told that rise in tuition fees may be bad but
unfortunately inevitable, he would not have gathered as much votes.

Week 9 , 26 Nov 2010: Organisational power, politics and

conflict
Conflict and quest for power is an important topic to discuss as conflict is a “fact of life,
in organisation just as everywhere else as people compete for jobs, resources,
acknowledgement and security” (Bagshaw, 1998).

Moreover, it may tremendously impact on an organisation’s performance. The lectures

reviewed diverse schools’ opinion on conflict. I agree with the Unitarist, who considers
that conflict is negative and dangerous for an organisation as they have a holistic view
of organisations (Fox 1966 mentioned in the handout).Bagshaw (1998) mentioned the
case of a conflict between two employees. He highlighted the fact that this conflict had
a major influence in the atmosphere of the whole company. This refers to the holistic
view of the organisation by the Unitarist School which suggests that a conflict not only
impact on the individuals involved in the conflict, but affect the whole organisation and
lastly its performance and success. This idea is reinforced by a recent case that occurred
within Microsoft. Indeed, the launch of their mobile phone called KIN this year failed
memorably, realising a poor figure of 500 devices sold. Therefore, they had to take it
from the market after only six weeks (sam diaz,ZD net. 210) . What is interesting here is
that an internal conflict between two employees seems to be the origin of this disaster
and more particularly two employees who occupied powerful positions. According to
Engadget, a web blog on electronic items, the failure was caused by a rivalry between a
Microsoft executive James Allard and a Windows Vice President Andy Lees. J Allard was
initially at the head of the project but Andy Lees, in quest for power, succeeded to eject
the former in favour of his division who are said not to be as competent as J Allard’s
team for this particular task. This example clearly shows how the quest for power and
recognition in a company can generate conflict and result to a chaotic experience
affecting the whole organisation.

Part 3: evaluative summary.

The lectures have linked scholar theories and ideas into practices and current actualities
which have appeared to be extremely interesting. Indeed generally, modules tend to be
exam-oriented only and contents are hardly applicable in future carriers. In contrast,
within this module, the balance between theory and practice has been well managed by
both lecturers.

Moreover, critical analysis has been emphasised throughout the semester which has
permitted students to express their own views without necessarily agreeing with the
lecturer’s opinions. In this respect, it has allowed me to challenge myself into gaining
personal views and more importantly, into knowing me better. Indeed, I remember that
the lecturer asked us to write one word that would represent us and I was stuck,
incapable of describing myself. This has really affected me thus, I asked my relatives for
one word that would correspond to me and I was quite surprised to discover that some
of my relatives mentioned the exact same words. They knew me better that I knew
myself. In addition to that, they described me as totally opposite of what I thought I was.

Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may
have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have
a service perfectly matched to your needs.

View our services

This idea leads to a topic dealt this semester, which is perception. I realised that
perception is unique, depends on various factors and commonly creates distorted
images: one may perceive a situation or a person differently than another person may
do. This is therefore, one of the main challenges of organisations to deal effectively with
differences in perceptions as it may lead to further conflicts, wrong communication
process, and ineffective management practices. Personally, perception is, without any
doubt, the leitmotiv of this course.

Lastly, I realised that I applied some of the theories when a teacher, even though I had
no business background. It reassured me dramatically because I felt that I could
contribute to the class too. Consequently, I certainly claim that all my objectives have
been fulfilled during this semester.

As for my experience in writing a reflective diary, I may admit that the starting point was
very hesitant. I never wrote this type of assignment and I have always been used to
adopt a formal form in my written style. In addition to that, I missed three sessions due
to health troubles which made the reflective process very stressing and I felt that I would
never be able to write it. However, once I began, it proved to be challenging to be
extremely concise and to follow the requirements for the world limit as I wanted to add
numerous examples and cases.
I reckon that this form of assignment is a useful learning tool. Indeed, it allows the writer
to be independent during the learning process and to be free to highlight ideas and to
deepen the concepts that he preferred among others during the class. This task truly
permitted to achieve one of my objectives, which was to break with the strict and
conventional way of learning and being assessed in favour of more freedom and
interaction.

Referencing list
Shuller, R.S and Jackson S.E (1999). Strategic Human Resource Management. Oxford.
Blackwell Publishers Ltd

Subramanya Sarma V. V. (1997) Organizational behavior. New Deli. Anmol Publication

PVT Ltd. Retreived from Googlebooks database, available at http://books.google.co.uk

McKenna, E. (1994) Business Psychology and Organisational Behaviour. East Sussex.

Psychology press ltd

Luthans ,F. (2002) Organizational Behaviour. Ninth edition. New York. McGraw -Hill
Higher education
Comparison of Management Theories and Styles

Source: Ghoshal (2005), Pizam (2005), Agarwal (1982), Ghuman (2010), and Hatch and Cunliffe (2012)

Organizational Theory resembles the Organization

The organizational theory that resembles the organization in which I work is neoclassical theory as I
work in a restaurant and the success depends on the employees’ behavior and fulfillment of
responsibilities. The management in the organization focuses on employee-centered approach and
that’s why emphasize on the decentralization, participative decision making, teamwork, high level
communication and to motivate employees through meeting their physiological, social and
psychological needs. The management provides training to employees and focus on group dynamics.

Management Theories and Styles resembles Management in the Organization

The management theory and style that resembles management in the organization (restaurant) I work is
the human relations theory to management as described earlier and participative management style. As
the management involves employees in the decision making process and in making strategies. In
addition, the management believes on team work and top-down and down-top communication.
However, there is an issue faced by the management in the organization I work for. The issue is that the
style management follows does not work in all business situations and create problems between
employees and management. The employees get confused and are not able to perform as expected that
in turn put negative effects on the achievement of desired individual and organizational goals.
Recommendation to make the Organization Better

In order to make organization effective and to be reactive to every situation, it is recommended that the
management should use mixed management approaches and styles. It is recommended that the
management should use contingency model with the combination of human relations management
theory. It would enable the management to use advantages of both management models like
decentralization, teamwork, and high level communication, etc. Moreover, it would enable the
management to change its style, according to situation and business needs. For instance, with respect to
business needs and situation the management can use participative management style to involve
employees or authoritative style to reduce ambiguities and for accuracy.

References

Agarwal, R. D. (1982). Organization and management. India: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Baker, H. K., & Filbeck, G. (2013). Portfolio Theory and Management. USA: Oxford University Press.

Burton, R. M., Eriksen, B., Håkonsson, D. D., & Snow, C. C. (2006).Organization design: the evolving state-
of-the-art (Vol. 6). USA: Springer Science & Business Media.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of
Management learning & education, 4(1), 75-91.

Ghuman, K. (2010). Management: Concepts, practice & cases. India: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2012). Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern
perspectives. USA: Oxford university press.

Pizam, A. (2005). International encyclopedia of hospitality management. USA: Routledge.

Raju, S., & Parthasarathy, R. (2004). Management: Text and Cases. India: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.

Ziegler, S. M. (2005). Theory-directed nursing practice. USA: Springer Publishing Company.

Read more at: https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/organizational-theories-essays-examples/

Organizational Theories Comparison, Research
Paper Example
Pages: 5
Words: 1441
Research Paper

This Research Paper was written by one of our professional writers.

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.
Need a custom Research Paper written for you?
HIRE A WRITER!

Introduction
Organizational theory (OT) is “the study of organizations for the benefit of identifying
common themes for the purpose of solving problems, maximizing efficiency and
productivity, and meeting the needs of stakeholders”. Organizational theories can be
divided under three sub headings according to nature and period of origin. Classical
perspectives are the oldest form, neoclassical form evolved after that and finally
environmental perspective. It can otherwise be classified as classical, modern and
post-modern (Daft & Murphy, 2010). This paper tries to understand the difference
between modern and postmodern theory of organization. For the purpose of this study
two theories are selected, human relations theory (modern) and contingency theory
(postmodern).
Human relations theory was formed in 1930 as a reaction to classical approach that
under emphasized human relations in organizations. This was a critical approach to
classical theory that considered organizations as mechanical entity and
underemphasized human behavior aspects in an organization. This theory was first
proposed by Elton Mayo, a sociologist from America (O’Connor & Netting, 2009).
Second theory selected for this study is contingency theory based on structure of
organization. It is one of the most recent theories of organizations. This was
developed during 1960’s. Contingency theory is considered as a structural theory and
this theory relates structure and contingency to lead to best performance of
company (Hassard & Parker, 1994).
Theories were selected on behalf of the factor that both are related to internal factors
of organization. Human relations are factors forming structure of organization to a
certain extent and hence it can be related to contingency theory as well. Furthermore
these two theories forms the most prominent theories from modern and postmodern
organizational theories. They also plays a major role in today’s organizational
structure.
Human relations theory
Foundational concepts
Human Relations Theory was developed initially during 1930’s and this was against
the classical methods of organizational analysis. Human factor in an organization was
neglected by classical theorists. Socio psychological factors in an organization were
underemphasized in classical theories and organization was viewed as a mechanical
factor. Failure of classical theory to consider humanitarian aspect thus gave rise to
human relations theory (Ivanko, 2012).
Origins of the theoretical development
Human Relations Theory was found by an American Sociologist, Elton Mayo in 1932.
He conducted Hawthorne Experiment during 1924 – 1932 in Western Electric
Company, Hawthorne. Experiment was conducted under his leadership by Harvard
Business School and this laid the foundation of theory of Human Relations (Daft &
Murphy, 2010).
There are three elements for Theory of Human Relations and they are informal
organization, individual and participative management. According to this theory
individuals are to be considered as individuals with perceptions and emotions and not
as robot. It is the human relations that determine production in organization and thus
organizational output. Thus there exists an informal organization with in formal
organization. It also emphasize that managers are to consult workers and help them to
participate in decision making process leading to a higher productivity by improving
working environment (Ivanko, 2012).
Historical triggers
Many companies were to improve the skills of employees and for developing
interpersonal skills employees were to be trained in soft skill development. It became
necessary that employees communicate successfully with managers for conveying
information, interpreting emotions of others, to remain open to feelings of others and
to solve any conflicts and for arriving at resolutions. With these skills employees can
maintain a better relation with managers and customers. These factors became
important concern for companies and this theory was implemented (O’Connor &
Netting, 2009).
Example of this theory in organizational operations
Human relations are of great importance in human services. This is because attitude of
staff to their situation of work and coworkers have a direct consequence on client
relation. It is the relation between client and worker that is most important in this type
of service. If a worker lacks support from colleague or is having a role conflict it will
have great impact on service delivered (O’Connor & Netting, 2009).
Description of this type of organization
One such organization is hospital where workers are interfering with customers
directly. If a nurse or doctor is detached from client, and is negative, cynical or
inflexible in attitude they won’t be able to behave to patients with care and affection.
It will create a negative impression for hospital. With participatory management
workers can be empowered and motivated to provide best attention to clients and thus
benefit the organization (O’Connor & Netting, 2009).
SWOT
Strengths – Workers who are compassionate to customers provide best service
possible. This increases reputation of organization, and is communicated to others.
This will lead to an increase in customer base and will result in growth of organization
causing employee satisfaction.
Weakness – Employees are more concerned about customers than management and
this can lead to loss to organization. Customer care is given more priority than cost
incurred for organizational activities.
Opportunity- Increase customer base for organization will have better reputation in
the industry.
Threat – More consideration to employees and customers is likely to result in loss of
organization for profits will not be looked upon.
Contingency theory
Foundational concepts
GET NOTIFICATIONS ABOUT NEW ESSAY SAMPLES IN YOUR DISCIPLINES TO YOUR EMAIL!

Your Email
Academic level

Select Level
Discipline

Select Discipline

I agree to receive emails from Essays.io

GET FREE SAMPLES NOW!

According to this theory an organization cannot be lead or organized with a single

method. Such actions according to this theory are dependent on external and internal
situations (Hassard & Parker, 1994).

Origins of the theoretical development

It was during late 1960’s that contingency approaches were developed. According to
contingency theorists Taylor’s scientific management and Weber’s bureaucracy failed
for they neglected the influence of environmental factors on organizational structure
and management style. According to this theory there is no single way for
organization or leadership. It was with Joan Woodward’s work in 1958 that this
perspective originated (Burton, 2006).
Historical triggers
Contingency theory forms broad generalization of formal structures that are associated
typically with different technologies. According to Joan Woodward difference in
organization is determined directly by various contingencies like customers,
government, competitor, technology, unions, supplier, consumer interest groups and
distributors. Factors affected are authority centralization, span of control and
formation of procedures and rules (Hassard & Parker, 1994).
Example of this theory in organizational operations
One of the best examples of contingency theory is BP Oil Spill. BP came to lime light
after oil spill issue and was considered as the best example of bad decision on
environmental matters. They also made worst solutions for solving this
issue (sites.google, 2011).
Visual chart of this type of organization
BP was worst affected by external factors like social environment, issue under
question and external public. They failed to find any solution for the problem and all
solutions failed to solve the issue. Initially they tried to blame others but at last they
were forced to take accept accommodation as fast as possible (Reuters, 2013).
SWOT
Strength – if an organization can gain support of environmental factors it can gain
success. If BP had tried to sort out the issue initially their reputation would have been
far better than they have today.
Weakness- Once you have lost support from external factors it is not easy to regain
and image and reputation of company will be highly affected. BP is considered as one
of the worst managed company without any environmental concerns.
Opportunity- If BP had solved the issue at first by taking responsibility they would
have been given a better reputation and would have been considered as a firm valuing
environment.
Threat – Even a small failure can lead to great consequence. It was mismanagement at
BP that created such a big issue due to which they lost their reputation and name in
society.
Conclusion
Both modern and postmodern theories are equally applicable for organizations.
Humanitarian factors are equally important as environmental factors. Organizations
need to consider their employees and it is from this consideration that they will gain
support from external environments. Those organizations considering their employees
will have a reputation I society. Contingency factors also have equal influence on
performance of organization.
With this exercise I have understood the importance of internal and external
environment on the functioning of an organization. Both plays equal role in the
success of an organization. Hence it is important for the organization to consider both
these factors in its functioning with equal weightage for gaining reputation and
success in its functioning.
References
Burton, R. M. (2006). Organization Design: The Evolving State-Of-The-Art. New
York: Springer.
Daft, R. L., & Murphy, J. (2010). Organization: Theory and Design. Hampshire:
Cengage Learning EMEA,.
Hassard, J., & Parker, M. (1994). Towards a New Theory of Organization. London:
Routledge.
Ivanko, S. (2012, March). Modern theory of organisation. Kovinarska, Kamnik,
Slovenia.
O’Connor, M. K., & Netting, F. E. (2009). Organization Practice: A Guide to
Understanding Human Service Organizations. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Reuters. (2013, March 16). BP asks judge to halt ‘fictitious’ and ‘absurd’ Deepwater
oil spill payouts. The Guardian , p. 6.
sites.google. (2011, June 21). BP Oil Spill: Example. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from
www.sites.google.com: https://sites.google.com/site/jernstprcontingencytheory/bp-oil-
spill
Comparing Organizational Theories Of Google And Starbucks Essay

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Theory, Business, Management, Workplace, Employee, Organization, Company, Google

Pages: 6

Words: 1700

Published: 11/26/2019

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

ABSTRACT

Organizational theories are a means to structure and conduct business or one’s specific goals within a
group or organization. There are many different types of theories; in particular, systems theory and
classical organizational theory are two significant examples of structures in which many modern
companies operate. While classical theory espouses a more traditional, rigid division of labor, systems
theory encourages a more fluid, cooperative structure among the members of an organization.
Expanding these definitions to the corporate sector reveals a distinct difference in the way many major
corporations conduct business. Google Inc. and Starbucks, Inc. will be explored in terms of both classical
and systems theory, and the various attributes of both theories will be explored.

INTRODUCTION

Organizations, such as corporations, are complicated and dynamic, with goals that they world toward;
this necessitates a specific methodology, or theory, that will allow them to structure their organization
to suit their own preferences and specific needs. Organizational theories abound in this modern,
technological age; a variety of innovative new ways of thinking have arisen, and corporations are taking
advantage of them. Systems theory involves providing everyone in the organization with a common
threat or code, allowing individuals and positions to interrelate and work together to find solutions
regardless of hierarchy. Classical theories of organizations, however, are far more reductivist in their
thinking, and focus on strict hierarchies and chain of command. In this paper, we will evaluate the
corporations Google, Inc., and Starbucks, Inc., in order to determine which organizational theories they
use in their management, and how they compare and contrast.

GOOGLE

Google Inc., runs a family of information technology products, including software and web applications,
all centering around their Google search engine, which is one of the most (if not the most) popular
search engines on the Internet. As a corporation, Google operates mainly on a classical organizational
theory, with a traditional corporate structure. Bureaucracy is the name of the game, wherein there are
closely defined regulations for behavior and conduct of an employee through an employee handbook.
Different departments exist that handle different sections of the business – customer service, quality
assurance, and a large number of information technology departments. The public good is of primary
concern to Google, and therefore all activities are directed by those in power; they also flourish in
today’s free market system, wherein the best product wins out. Google gets ahead by placing all its
efforts toward creating the best product they can in the web design and software application markets.

A clear chain of command must exist in a classical organization structure – management rank is the
primary barometer by which authority is meted. In a classical organization such as Google, a board of
directors exists, headed by cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, which oversees all major decisions
made by the company. The day-to-day operations of Google, however, are run by the CEO and other
executive officers. These two groups make up the management team of the company. Further down the
line, there are managers and supervisors of the various departments, all creating a systematic chain of
command from executive to individual employee. This creates accountability, and the capacity for strict
maintenance of authority (Etzioni, 1964).
Individual advancement in a classical organization occurs given the merit of the specific employee; if
someone wants to advance in the organization, they must work hard and possess superior job
performance; if they can, they will qualify for added responsibilities and potential promotions within the
organization. Workers are thought to be motivated by the money they get from their work, which is
increased through raises, promotions and bonuses (Perrow, 1973). Labor is strictly divided by
specialization, with certain employees being skilled at departments to which they dedicate the entirety
of their work. There is no crossover or interdisciplinary concentrations for employees, and the corporate
hierarchy focuses much more on the care of the management

Another hallmark of classical organizations is the presence of professional managers – individuals who
run the company, who do so for the owners of the company (Perrow, 1973). In the case of Google, this is
represented by the presence of the board of directors, where the two owners do not directly run the
company. This provides a level of transparency and accountability, where the owners are able to reap
the benefits of the continued success of the company while serving merely in an advisory capacity,
allowing the CEO and other executives to handle the day-to-day operations of the company. Within the
company, the operation is very transparent, executives remaining open with employees about policy
changes, while keeping its inner workings secret to the public and outside forces. This is to lessen
scrutiny, and protect the employees and executives from being subject to the public opinion of outside
forces.

While Google focuses mainly on a classical structure, there are elements of systems theory in place as
well. The actual Google offices (Googleplexes) are havens for cooperation, teambuilding, and interaction
with all levels of the company. Communication between branches and levels of authority are somewhat
encouraged, and their employees are very well taken care of financially. However, this is all done for the
ultimate classical structure which maintains the primary authority of

STARBUCKS

Starbucks is a chain coffee shop that sells gourmet coffee, paninis, baked goods and other products to
upscale customers worldwide. It is one of the most profitable and wide-reaching companies in the
world, and this is partially due to its innovative, systems theory-based management style. In essence,
systems theory involves the interrelation of every segment of an organization, leaving the alteration of a
single variable to have lasting consequences on the remainder of these segments. As a result, each
segment or department must have equal say or importance, and all components of the corporate
culture have to contribute equally to the success of the company in order to thrive (Kast & Rosenzweig,
1972).
Starbucks performs a number of systemic actions to maintain diversity and interrelation; at the same
time, there are semblances of the same kind of division of labor and hierarchy evidenced in a classical
organizational structure. As it stands right now, Starbucks announced a new corporate structure in order
to accelerate growth strategies, involving a three-region organizational structure that divides the world
market into the Asia Pacific Markets, the Americas, and Europe and African markets. Each organization
has a president to oversee the business of each market, which is meant to tailor each market to its
specific needs – this particularly applies to the Asian market, where business is still growing (Katz &
Kahn, 1966).

Systems theory in an organization is greatly reliant on receiving feedback and its employees being open
to providing new ideas (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Starbucks does that in spades; the company
maintains a friendly, upbeat, inclusive corporate culture, taking steps to include employees of all levels
in the development and growth experience of the company. The “Starbucks Experience” is the
company’s label to describe the feeling of camaraderie and family that corporate culture and attitudes
encourage. The competitive pay and benefits programs for its employees also contributes to each
employee feeling like a partner in the company, thus increasing their productivity and decreasing
turnover dramatically - this sees to their control and inclusion needs.

Given that systems theory focuses on the importance of relationships and patterns of duties, integrating
of tasks is very important. Employees at the coffee shop level are given a wide berth, and allowed to
customize their specific space in order to provide a more integrated work environment for that specific
area. Instead of the management being responsible for the employees, each member of the
organization is equally responsible for these duties, and therefore must dedicate the same amount of
energy to the company’s success. Low-level employees are encouraged to share the workload with their
peers, instead of delineating specific duties to specific people (though that can happen depending on
the specific work environment) (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972).

The stakeholder concept is a very large component of systems theory – the management must not act
solely in their own interests, but for the sake of the stakeholders. This allows the stakeholders to carry a
vested interest in the policy of the company, and the ability to shape said policy. At Starbucks,
stakeholder management is utilized to govern the corporation, managing relationships and interests of
employees and customers. This promotes further corporate social responsibility, as those who benefit
from (and finance) the company are taken into account (Freeman, 1984).

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Google and Starbucks have somewhat similar organizational hierarchies, but their basic
organizational theories have distinct differences. In the case of Google, they run somewhat like a
traditional, classical organization, with a hierarchical, bureaucratic structure that focuses on top-down
chain of command. With Starbucks, however, while there is still a semblance of bureaucracy, they
maintain a great number of systems theory practices, including permitting employees from the lowest
level down to legitimately be heard regarding ideas to improve the company. The compartmentalization
of the company by region also allows for a greater division of labor between areas of the world. Both
companies carry the hallmarks of both styles of organization (classical and systems), providing a fair
middle-ground for their organizational structure that does not emphasize just one discipline. However,
Starbucks, with its heavy emphasis on employee participation and interaction, provides a large number
of elements of systems theory within its corporate culture.

References

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern organizations . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Freeman, R. (1964). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Freeman Edward, 1, 31-60.

Kast, F., & Rosenzweig, J. (1972). General Systems Theory: Applications for Organization and
Management. The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447-465.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations . New York: Wiley.

Perrow, C. (1973). The short and glorious history of organizational theory. Organizational Dynamics, 2, 2-
15.

Read more at: https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/comparing-organizational-theories-of-

google-and-starbucks-essay/