Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ob Assignment
Ob Assignment
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
Reference this
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.
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is
here to help!
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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
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.
Raju, S., & Parthasarathy, R. (2004). Management: Text and Cases. India: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
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
Pages: 6
Words: 1700
Published: 11/26/2019
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 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
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.