Organization Theory and Behavior -

Organization Theory and Behavior - the MOVE Situation

In order to properly analyze the MOVE case, its evolution, and the factors that influenced the development and finalization of the case, it is necessary to briefly summarize the MOVE situation as it took place. The MOVE group began its history in the early 1970s in West Philadelphia. The group's headquarters were located in the Powelton Village Section. This group was favored by its location in the vicinity of two important college campuses. The tolerance of the community in which the group activated favored the development of MOVE. In the beginning of the group's history, MOVE was characterized by quarrels with landlords, as the group members did not pay their bills. Their lifestyle had started to become a threat for the members of the community in which MOVE was located. However, things did not remain this peaceful for a long time. MOVE members started to be linked with gun traffic and possession and other related crimes. This led to tense relationships between MOVE members and the Philadelphia police. MOVE members were often arrested and harassed by the police. The case study under discussion presents the final part of the conflict between the Philadelphia police and MOVE members. Unfortunately, this conflict was ended by a fire in which some MOVE members, both adults and children, lost their life. The MOVE case will be further analyzed with the following areas of organization theory: . Organization structures and dynamics . Decision-making . Motivation

Regarding decision-making, there are several theories and models of organizational studies: . Mintzberg's managerial roles theory . Rational decision-making model . Scientific model

In the case of the MOVE situation, it is probably more useful to analyze the case from the Mintzberg's theory's point of view. Henry Mintzberg is well-known for his contribution regarding management strategies, by accomplishing complex, innovating classifications. Strategies can be divided into static and dynamic. Static strategies are characterized by a conservative vision on the development of the organization, by paying special attention to maintaining the organization's current position, focusing on qualitative aspects. Dynamic strategies have very different contents, their essence relying on providing rapid changes in the organization or in major activities. In Mintzberg's opinion there are five types of organization: . Simple structure . Machine bureaucracy . Professional bureaucracy . Divisionalized form . Adhocracy The greatest part of public administration is probably characterized by bureaucracy. This situation is applied all over the world, at all levels of the administration. However, in public administration, bureaucracy is not applied in the ideal way in which Mintzberg intended it. In the ideal organizational structure, bureaucracy would be used in order to facilitate processes, to reduce the time required for developing certain activities. However, in real life, bureaucracy hardens any process in public administration. The principles that characterize Mintzberg's theory are: mutual adjustment, direct supervision, standardization of work processes, standardization of outputs, standardization of skills, and standardization of norms (Wikipedia, 2008). Mutual adjustment consists in reaching a certain degree of coordination by using informal communication. In the MOVE situation it is obvious that such a mutual adjustment, or coordination level, was not attained. One can say that there was no communication whatsoever, formal or informal, given the mayor's lack of action in the first phases of the situation. Direct supervision also aims at achieving coordination, by issuing orders or instructions. In this case, the orders and instructions were supposed to be issued by the mayor to its subordinates. But for a very long period of time in the development of this case, there were practically no orders issued, no measures taken. The case study brings under discussion the mayor's extremely late intervention. Henry Mintzberg's theory relies on coordination. Each principle of the theory aims at attaining this coordination. However, as mentioned above, this level of coordination was not attained in the case of the MOVE situation. The actions that were finally taken by the mayor came at a very late moment. This can only mean two things: either the mayor was completely irresponsible, or he was simply incompetent. By not taking any measures from the beginning, the mayor showed that he did not care a great deal about the MOVE group situation. Or maybe he just had other priorities that required his attention more. Such a variant is out of the question, since the mayor of any community must be present at all times in all the areas that present problems that must be taken care of. The explanation of the mayor's delayed action probably resides in the fact that the mayor did not take the situation seriously enough from the beginning. The situation should have been analyzed since the first signs of trouble emerged. When the community started having certain difficulties with MOVE members, the mayor should have ordered an audit on the situation. But he probably underestimated the situation and at some point things started to get out of control, sort of speak, because it seems things were never under control. This is how MOVE members easily became involved in gun traffic and possession, leading to other related crimes. Given the circumstances, it was only a matter of time until a tragedy like the fire discussed in the case study would emerge. The mayor's reaction to the entire situation, the delayed measures, the underestimation of the situation, denote that the mayor acted incompetently regarding this matter. One cannot make any suppositions regarding the mayor's activity aside from this case, as it is not recommended to generalize. However, the situation regarding MOVE situation was not only the mayor's responsibility. Any mayors govern their communities with the help of a team. In this case, the team was practically non-existent. Regarding organization structures and dynamics, the most important theories and models include: . Bureaucracy . Contingency theory . Informal organization theory . Institutional theory Of the above mentioned theories, the most suitable for this case seems to be the contingency theory. Such theories are defined through correlative approaches of management motivation, the organization, and its exogenous environment. It is worth mentioning that contingency theories do not focus strictly on motivation. Usually, motivation is treated as a major component in management, correlated with the organization and its environment. Contingency theory principles consist in identifying one or more sets of variables that reflect the state and evolution of the organization, of the external environment, and of the management system, by revealing the manner in which they influence personnel motivation and feedback. The main conclusion of this approach consists in the approach towards motivation, particularized on each organization and managerial situation, based on a thorough analysis of the variables under discussion. The most suitable model is the contingency model proposed by Fred Fiedler. Basically, Fiedler's contingency model assumes that there is not just one best leadership model. In his opinion, "the leader's effectiveness is based on situational contingency that is the result of interaction of two factors, known as leadership style and situational favorableness" (Wikipedia, 2008). Furthermore, in Fiedler's opinion, the leadership style is influenced by each leader's personality, and personality cannot usually be modified. In addition to this, the leader can be human relations oriented or task oriented. In our case, the leader, the mayor, does not seem to be a part of any of the two categories. As one may deduct from the case, mayor's human qualities are not found particularly positive by his subordinates, which might lead us to the assumption that in this case, we are dealing with a task oriented leader. However, it is a proven fact that task oriented leaders are more effective, their activities have a significantly higher rate of success. In the MOVE case, one cannot talk about a success, but about a total failure. Besides, the mayor's actions were taken extremely late. Even more, one may admit the fact that the mayor managed the situation in a completely wrong manner that was definitely not suitable for the situation in case. Regarding motivation theories, the most important include: . Attribution theory . Equity theory . Maslow's hierarchy of needs . Incentive theory

As leaders are concerned, there is a very interesting connection between motivation and power that must be brought under discussion. The central element, which significantly determines the contents and the results of motivation consists in the power that any organization's managers and subordinates own. Although invisible, power is a major ingredient of personnel motivation. There are several definitions on power: Finkelstein, Hickson, Lee, and Schneck define power as someone's ability to impose their will. Robey, Salanick, and Pfeffer define power as the quality or ability to determine the accomplishment of certain elements in a manner that someone wants these objectives to be attained. To sum up, power is someone's ability to influence decision-making, action-taking, and behaviors of other members of the organization in accordance with that person's will. A leader's power is directly proportional with its influence, imposing its own vision and will on a superior level. There are two categories of sources of power within the organization: individual and organizational. The Philadelphia mayor, and any mayor in general, must be characterized by power at a certain level. Public administration employees usually hold great power, and mayors make no exception, on the contrary. In our case, the mayor's sources of individual power are: . The power to reward, to control the rewards process within the organization . The power to sanction other employees . The mayor's formal position within the organization . Personal charisma . The mayor's authority as an expert . The mayor's personal drive for power . Self confidence