Organizational Theory CJ Management Seminar

CJ Management Seminar

Part 1

Place of Placement

From the onset, it would be prudent to note that I work as a fine dining server at a country club. In this role, I am charged with the role of ensuring that upon being seated, members are provided with immediate and appropriate attention. I ensure that the unique needs of members are addressed and their orders taken, followed by the placement of the said orders via the POS system. I also deploy the relevant serving procedures in the placement of dishes before guests and engaging them going forward to ensure that they have an amazing dining experience and that all their additional meal and drink orders are fulfilled. From time to time, additional roles may be assigned by the supervisor, i.e. during special events. To be able to function effectively in this role, I work closely with other colleagues including, but not limited to; bussers and cooks, as well as management and supervisors.

Theoretical Dominant Model of Organization

Before identifying the theoretical dominant model of organization at my place of employment, it would be prudent to note that there are essentially three such models that have been identified in various organizational theory texts in the past. These are: rational, natural, and open models (Onday, 2016). To begin with, the rational model perceives organizations as systems that exhibit social structures that are highly formalized and that concern themselves with the fulfilment of certain clear goals (Scott, 2003). As natural systems, Scott (2003) indicates that organizations are systems made of players in pursuit of both common and diverse interests, but who are well aware of the relevance of keeping the organization going, and deem the said organization as a crucial resource. Lastly, the open system perspective does not consider the organization to be a closed system – as is the case with the other two perspectives highlighted above (Scott, 2003). Instead, as per this particular perspective, organizations are part and parcel of their environments and are indeed sustained by external inflow of information, resources, as well as personnel (Scott and Davis, 2015).

With the understanding developed from the assessment above, the theoretical dominant model of organization at my place of employment happens to be the rational model. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this text, the perspective of this particular model is that the principal orientation of organizations happens to be the fulfilment of clearly defined objectives. Further, on this front, the social structures of an organization happen to have a high degree of formalization. There are a number of features and/or characteristics of this particular perspective that informed my selection of the same as the model that best describes my place of work. The structure of management/leadership at my place of work happens to be largely hierarchical. This is to say that at the top, we have the top management who are concerned with overall strategy formulation. We also have middle-level managers who are largely concerned with the day-to-day running of the country club. Closer to the bottom of the hierarchy are supervisors who essentially assign specific roles to the rest of us and also issue specific guidelines on how we are supposed to perform our roles. Further, supervisors ensure that specific standards are met, i.e. in relation to the quality of service advanced to guests of the country club.

Next, we have the high degree of formalization. At my place of work, all operations are governed by clear procedures and individuals have well-defined roles. There is the expectation that unless otherwise directed, all persons should focus on their assigned duties and responsibilities. For instance, as a server, I am not expected to perform the duties of the busser unless otherwise directed by my supervisor. Indeed, to a large extent, I would describe my place of work as being a bureaucratic organization. This is more so the case given the high degree of organization and formality – in which case no employee is supposed to step outside of his mandate. For instance, as a server, I am supposed to adhere to the relevant protocols in as far as decision-making is concerned. I cannot, for instance, deviate from my responsibilities without the express authorization of my immediate supervisor. It therefore follows that to the extent that the country club exhibits a high degree of formality, the most ideal model would be the rational system

One other crucial aspect of the rational system happens to be the pursuit and fulfillment of certain clear goals. The country club has a clear mission, vision as well as objectives. To a large extent, the mission statement has in this case been designed to capture the primary purpose of the country club. This is more so the case in relation to the maximization of the experience of members. More specifically, the country club’s mission statement indicates that it is there for the sole service of its members and ensuring that they are able to access excellent recreational amenities and an environment that is conducive for social interactions. To help achieve this mission, a number of goals (long-term, medium term, and short-term) have been formulated. Towards this end, we all work towards the fulfilment of this stated mission and the various goals. Thus, to the extent that the country club considers this to be a crucial interest, then the most ideal model happens to be the rational system.

Effectiveness of the Model

In my opinion, this particular model does have some features that promote effectiveness. This is more so the case in relation to ensuring that there is no ambiguity in relation to duties and responsibilities of all employees of the country club. On this front, the individual roles are defined and enforced in the formalized structure. In essence, this promotes effectiveness by limiting opportunities for duplication of efforts. Secondly, the model promotes the country club’s stability and operational predictability. Thanks to the high degree of formalization and clear definition of objectives, the country club is able to avoid a chaotic work environment. The various procedures and rules in place make it easy for management to predict employee relationships as well as behaviors. This could be aid the county club’s planning efforts.

However, it should also be noted that there are inefficiencies that could be directly linked to the rational system. To begin with, I have come to the realization that the county club has not been able to foster employee flexibility and creativity. It is important to note that some of the guests we serve happen to be wealthy individuals who are in some cases very specific about what they need or desire. Thus, there is no standard expectation on this front. Permitting some degree of flexibility in this case would likely enable employees to better address the diverse needs of guests. Unfortunately, the highly formalized structure of the country club results in rigidity. It should also be noted that this particular model ignores the fact that the country club is part and parcel of its environment. To be able to thrive and even better fulfill the needs of members, the country club should appreciate the role and relevance of other stakeholders including, but not limited to the local community, suppliers, etc. This is more so the case given that as Scott (2003) points out, external elements could be instrumental sources of information as well as resources.

Part 2

Internal Constituencies and Informal Organizations

According to Kenny (1954), formal organization could be conceptualized in terms of the organizational structure and how it is applied in the performance of various functions. As the author further indicates, in the context of police departments, formal organization comes in handy in efforts to achieve control and coordination. However, according to the author, it cannot be deemed sufficient by itself. It is for this reason that there is need to take into consideration the informal organization.

At my place of work, internal constituencies comprise of all those formally assigned certain roles within the organizational structure, and actively collaborate with peers towards the performance of the said roles. Organizational internal groups are formally recognized and created or established with a certain end in mind. Towards this end, they could be inclusive of, but they are not limited to; servers, bussers, and cooks. They all exhibit certain characteristics. To begin with, they are task-oriented. This effectively means that their creation happens to be deliberate, i.e. so as to accomplish certain goals. For instance, servers happen to be instrumental in efforts to fulfill guest orders. Next, internal constituencies are connected to other organizational internal groups (Shafritz, Ott, and Jang, 2015). This is to say that they work as part of a whole and collaborate with other internal constituencies in efforts to achieve unity of purpose. To a large extent, no organizational internal group can work in isolation. For instance, at my place of work, servers work closely with cooks to fulfill guest orders. Third, it should also be noted that organizational internal groups happen to be more stable and long-lasting (Blomberg, 2020). This is more so the case given that their establishment is deliberate and not spontaneous. In addition, their stability emanates from the fact that they are inclined towards the fulfillment of organizational objectives as opposed to personal objectives.

Informal organizations at my place of work comprise of formations established to address or meet social needs of participants. Towards this end, examples of the said informal organizations at my place of work are inclusive of; employees who share common interests, employees from the same cultural backgrounds, employees who embrace the same political persuasion, employees from the same religion, etc. One of the key characteristics of these organizations is that their formation happens to be largely spontaneous and voluntary. This is to say that their formation or establishment is not necessarily sanctioned by the country club. For instance, I have seen informal organizations that are firmly rooted upon the love of a certain sport, i.e. soccer. Yet another characteristic of informal organizations, as Dipboye (2015) indicates, is that they lack a clear chain of command and mode of conduct. As the authors further observe, this means that they do not have a clear leader or clearly defined framework of rules, procedures, or regulations governing their operations. Further, informal organizations happen to be rather small. However, despite being smaller in size in comparison to organizational internal groups, the bonds established between members in this case could be tighter than those in organizational internal groups. Lastly, I have observed that informal organization tend to be rather volatile in the sense that engagements on this front are largely based on feelings and emotions. Thus, it is relatively easy for members to exit or join an informal organization.

Internal Constituencies and Informal Organizations: Informal and Formal Processes

In as far as how dominate internal constituencies as well as informal organizations are with the informal and formal processes, I am of the opinion that internal constituencies happen to be more aligned to the formal processes. This is more so the case given that their formation happens to be deliberate and, hence, well planned. Informal organizations largely operate outside of the formal processes. However, this is not to say that always interfere with formal processes. Indeed, it should be noted that as Kenny (1954) observes, informal organizations are not necessarily bad for the organization. For instance, to the extent that they make people happier and more exited at work, they result in the effective functioning of the various organizational processes.

Impact of Internal Constituencies and Informal Organizations on Organizational Complexity

a) Internal Constituencies

Organizational internal groups could result in organizations that are more or less complex. To the extent that their formation is as a consequence of deliberate organizational decisions, internal constituencies could help minimize organizational complexity. This is more so the case given that there is a high likelihood that their formation is rooted upon the identification of certain unaddressed organizational needs. Next, organizational internal groups promote systematic working in the sense that they work within a well-coordinated and collaborative framework. As a consequence, they are likely to be promoting of the smooth functioning of the various organizational activities – effectively minimizing organizational complexity. Third, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this text, organizational internal groups make it possible for organizations to reduce the possibility of duplication of roles. This is in most cases accomplished via the clear division of functions and responsibilities. The systematic division of work in this case could contribute towards efforts to rein in organizational complexity. One could also argue that organizational internal groups make it possible for the organization to achieve better coordination.