Mayo, Barnard, and Selznick's natural systems organizational theories

Natural Systems Model

'MAYO and the HUMAN RELATIONS SCHOOL'

DESCRIPTION of THEORY

Mayo in collaboration with Roethlisberger, was a member of the Harvard Business School faculty. He was trained as an industrial psychologist and his earliest work was derived from the scientific management tradition of Taylor. (Scott, 2003, paraphrased) Mayo studied individual factors that affected work including fatigue and his interest lay in that direction due to his attempts in determining the optimal length and spacing apart of period of resting to realize maximum productivity. Mayo is noted as having stated as follows:

"The conditions of scientific experiment had apparently been fulfilled -- experimental room, control room; changes introduced one at a time; all other conditions held steady. And the results were perplexing.… Lighting improved in the experimental room, production went up; but it rose also in the control room. The opposite of this: lighting diminished from 10- to 3-foot-candles in the experimental room and the production again went up; simultaneously in the control room, with illumination constant, production also rose. (Mayo 1945: 69; as cited in Scott, 2003, p. 61)

Reports state that the researchers "were in confusion. Other conditions were run with similar inexplicable results. In desperation, they decided to ask the workers themselves. what was going on and learned that the workers were so pleased to be singled out for special attention that they had tried to do the best they could for the researchers and for the company. The "Hawthorne effect" was discovered." (Scott, 2003, p.61)

BARNARD'S COOPERATIVE SYSTEM

DESCRIPTION of THEORY

It is reported by Scott (2003) that simultaneous to Mayo and his colleagues' conduction of their studies and of extrapolation for highlighting the critical nature of interpersonal processes and informal structures that "Chester I. Barnard was developing his own view of the nature of organizations." (2003, p. 66) While not an academic, Barnard was an executive serving as president of the New Jersey Bell Telephone company. (Scott, 2003, paraphrased)

Barnard emphasized that organizations "are essentially cooperative systems integrating the contributions of their individual participants." (Scott, 2003, p. 66) Channel decision-making has been informed by the view of organizations on the part of Barnard as being of the nature that arise "from the limitations of individuals -- physical, but more important cognitive constraints." (Scott, 2003, p. 66)

Also emphasized by Barnard is that the organization is reliant on the participant's willingness to make contributions and that individuals must be "induced to make contributions -- " and that individuals are motivated by various rewards including material as well as "...opportunities for distinction, prestige, and power -- and make them in sufficient quantities, or the organization cannot survive." (Scott, 2003, p. 66)

SELZNICK'S INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH

DESCRIPTION of THEORY

Philip Selznick -- student of bureaucracy under Merton at Columbia and intellectual descendent of Michels and Barnard -- developed unique natural system model. "For Selznick, "the most important thing about organizations is that, though they are tools, each nevertheless has a life of its own" (1949: 10). He agrees with the rational system analyst that the distinguishing characteristic of formal organizations is that they are rationally ordered instruments designed to attain goals. However, these formal structures can "never succeed in conquering the nonrational dimensions of organizational behavior" (1948: 25). The sources of these nonrational features are

(1) individuals, who participate in the organization as "wholes" rather than acting merely in terms of their formal roles; and (2) organizational structures that include the formal aspects but also the complex informal systems that link participants with one another and with others external to the official boundaries." (Scott, 2003, p. 69)

Scott (2003) relates that the early work of Selznick emphasized "the constraints imposed by individual and environmental commitments, his later work increasingly recognized that these same processes could be a source of strength. In some cases, participants came to share a common set of commitments and a unity of purpose that could create a formidable weapon." (Selznick, 1952as cited in Scott, 2003, p. 69). Selznick emphasized the critical nature of 'institutionalization' or the "processes by which an organization "takes on a special character" and "achieves a distinctive competence or, perhaps, a trained or built-in incapacity." (Selznick, 1996; as cited in Scott, 2003, p. 69)

PARSON'S AGIL SCHEMA

DESCRIPTION of THEORY

Parson's AGIL Schema (Naturalist system tradition) developed explicit model detailing the needs that must be met if a social system is to survive. AGIL is representative of the four basic needs of: (1) Adaptation -- the problem of acquiring sufficient resources; (2) Goal attainment -- the problem of setting and implementing goals; (3) Integration -- the problem of maintaining solidarity or coordination among the subunits of the system; and (4) Latency -- the problem of creating, preserving, and transmitting the system's distinctive culture and values.

According to Parson's scheme the ecological level views organizations as they are related to the functioning of the larger society. Parsons posits a "functional linkage" in which the "place or role of the subsystem is legitimated within the value system of the overarching social order. Parsons in the Grand Theory tradition attempted to bring about revival and synthesis in works of European leading sociological theorists. One of Parson's project involved perfection of a "general analytic model suitable for the analysis of all types of collectivities -- from small primary groups to entire societies.

SOCIAL CONFLICT MODEL

DESCRIPTION of THEORY

The Social Conflict model is one of the natural system perspective which is stated to exhibit two subtypes: (1) the social consensus; and (2) the social conflict variants. (Scott, 2003) Each of these are stated to have supporters with more Europeans scholars than U.S. scholars supporting this theory. Each of these are reported to be "grounded in general sociological theory with applications made to organizations, the conflict version developing later than the consensus model." (Scott, 2003)

Scott (2003) states that conflict theory most often is traced directly to the writings of Marx although "...a number of conflict scholars claim Weber and Michels as early progenitors because of their recognition that organizations are systems of domination serving the interests of those holding power. This school emphasizes the extent to which participants' interests diverge and values of stakeholders conflict. Change is seen to be as natural and common as is stability, and much of the stability of social order results from the dominance of one group or coalition of interests over others, not to be mistaken for unity or harmony of interests."(Scott, 2003)

RATIONAL SYSTEMS MODEL

TAYLOR'S SCIENTIFIC Management

DESCRIPTION of THEORY

Herbert Simon -- clarified the processes by which goal specificity and formalization contribute to rational behavior in organizations." (Scott, 2003, p.50) p.50 Simon distinguished between: (1) an individual's decisions to join and to continue to participate in an organization and (2) the decisions an individual is asked to make as a participant in the organization." (Scott, 2003, p.50) the organization's ultimate goals are stated to be "frequently somewhat vague and imprecise." (Scott, 2003, p.50) March and Simon argue that organizational goals "provide few cues for guiding the behavior of participants [and] can serve as the starting point for the construction of means-end chains" (Scott, 2003, p.50). Involved are the following: (1) starting with the general goal to be achieved, (2) discovering a set of means, very generally specified, for accomplishing this goal, (3) taking each of these means, in turn, as a new subgoal and discovering a set of more detailed means for achieving it, etc. (1958: 191) (Scott, 2003, p.50) Simon states that a hierarchy of goals is established in which each level is "...considered as an end relative to the levels below it and as a means relative to the levels above it. Through the hierarchical structure of ends, behavior attains integration and consistency, for each member of a set of behavior alternatives is then weighted in terms of a comprehensive scale of values -- the "ultimate" ends. (Simon, 1997: 74) "In addition to simplifying decisions for participants in all these ways, organizations also support participants in the decisions they are expected to make.

WEBER'S THEORY of BUREAUCRACY

DESCRIPTION of THEORY

Scott (2003) notes that it was observed by Collins (1986) that there is nothing "...known in the field of organizations, perhaps in all sociology, than Weber's model of bureaucracy. It also happens that there is no more complete misunderstanding of a major sociological theory than the way Weber's organizational theory was treated in American sociology." According to Scott (2003) the early interpretations of the work of Weber were flawed "in two major respects": (1) his famous depiction of the central features of rational-legal "bureaucratic" structures was decontextualized, taken out of historical context and treated as a kind of caricature of modern administration forms.; (2) Second, most of his arguments were interpreted as belonging within the framework of conventional technical rationality, whereas his conception was more complex, paving the way to an alternative conception of rationality." (Scott, 2003, p.43) Three types of authority were identified by Weber: (1) Traditional authority -- resting on an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under them; (2) Rational-legal authority -- resting on a belief in the "legality" of patterns of normative rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands; (3) Charismatic authority -- resting on devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him or her (1968 trans.: vol. 1: 212 -- 301; as cited in Scott, 2003)

Weber's model of bureaucracy contains the following characteristics:

Fixed division of labor among participants

Hierarchy of offices

Set of general rules that govern performance

Separation of personal from official property and rights

Selection of personnel on the basis of technical qualifications

Employment viewed as a career by participants

FAYOL'S ADMINSTRATIVE THEORY

DESCRIPTION of THEORY

The approach of the administrative theory developed alongside scientific management and emphasized the management function as well as attempting to generate broad administrative principles that served as guidelines for "the rationalization of organizational activities." (Scott, 2003, p.41) Fayol was a French industrialist and was one of the "earliest exponents of this approach." (Scott, 2003) Those who supported this view never stated a precise number of principles or the "precise formulation of many specific principles" however, there was a consensus on the importance of: (1) coordination; and (2) specialization. ( Scott, 2003)