Theoretical Approaches Towards the Development of Organizations

¶ … social organizations are increasingly multifaceted systems, primarily because of strong criticisms to the conventional mechanistic model, which formed the original basis for organizational theory, and because of related issues concerning ineffectiveness of associated hierarchical control. In the context of today's open and globalized markets, there is increased pressure for skillfulness, competitiveness, and flexibility, requiring more adaptive systems.

Consequently, there is great demand for modern complexity theories that would provide ideas to managers, with regard to organizational structures modeled on neural networks and self-organization, in consultancy as well as academic journals (Arevalo & Espinosa, 2015). Chaos Theory: The term chaos denotes confusion and turmoil. Theoretically, chaos signifies uncertainty of occurrences and reactions in a system against posited effect. Chaos theory doesn't consider organization as purely static, with mechanical operation; rather, it views organization as a dynamic arrangement operating a dynamic system.

Thus, organizations must be regarded similar to other natural living systems, as they are impacted by external and internal factors, and are capable of transforming into a distinct and definite structure. Chaotic situations render analytical approach poor and long-run planning, challenging (Banerjee, 2013). Complexity theory: Complexity, derived from Greek, denotes something 'woven together.' Complexity, scientifically, depends on links between a particular thing's components, rather than on variety/number of components. According to complexity theory, complex systems acquire order via uncontrolled interactions involving several agents. The interactions generate unpredictable results (Banerjee, 2013).

Autopoietic theory: Autopoiesis represents living systems' organizational characteristic: their self-distinction and self-production, and is believed to be the defining characteristic of life. Simple observation helps in determining whether or not a system is autopoietic. Autopoiesis also determines system identity. Time only enters the theory via the concept of conservation (or invariance in an interval of time). Structural changes occur constantly in the system, but autopoiesis is maintained and conserved, failing which, it will disintegrate.

This tautological statement is of interest only because the system's very identity comes through self-distinction generated by autopoiesis (this is the choice of the observer). However, the theory, at this juncture, begins relying on intuitions. As autopoiesis's conservation is not explained in its definition, autopoietic theory, often, is supplemented by turning to metaphors (Paolo, 2009). Dialectical Change Theory: This model was developed in 2002 by Creed and Seo, inspired by Benson; the authors employ symbolic interactionism to explain the model.

They state that four key principles, namely, social construction, contradiction, praxis and totality drive organizational studies under their model. The social construction principle concentrates on social systems which create new social order (for instance, a new firm being instituted), as well as on new social exchanges which slowly outline rules and routines. This gives rise to new totality, i.e., an organization having various subcultures, connected through general rules to form a "loosely linked" system.

Contradictions, according to the model, denote the numerous disagreements and discrepancies of interpretation between different subcultures and systemic levels comprising the totality. Over time, these contradictions between the real world and theory increase, leading to the system being questioned; this gives rise to novel social practices (or praxis), aimed at transforming current social system. The praxis characterizes different levels of collective action, of lesser or greater effect, planned by those whose job is exploiting contradictions and shaping systems in line with their interests (Vasconcelos & Vasconcelos, 2012).

Systems Theory: As per this theory, there may be nonlinear relationships between variables. Small variations in a certain variable may result in enormous variations in another, and vice versa. The nonlinearity concept greatly complicates our interpretation of organizations.

Indeed, the fact that complexity arising from nonlinearity makes a thorough understanding of links between variables impossible, or at the least, difficult, is one among the leading arguments in opposition to systems theory (Walonick, 1993).] Strengths and Weaknesses of organization with effect of theoretical approaches A majority of organization development theories, until recently, regarded decline to be a sign of unsuccessful performance; efficiently-managed firms were supposed to progress each year.

These theories held the common notion - that organizational expansion and growth are synonymous - reflecting what was seen in the corporate world. Growth of the firm indicated effective management (Walonick, 1993). Contrary to these theories, Porter (1980) and Harrigan (1980; 1981; 1982) have explored organizations 'response to decline resulting from environmental limitations (k-extinction). Organizations normally try to concentrate on a particular market niche, wherein they may have an edge over rivals.

A second strategy is rapid liquidation of the firm, and extracting the maximum possible remaining value; however, Harrigan (1982) writes that, often, this strategy may be faced with legal, financial, emotional and structural complications. The concept of accountability states that, as firms are chartered by the overall society, they are ultimately responsible to society. Worker protection and environmental laws also believe that profit maximization shouldn't be given precedence over society's health. An abundance of laws that restrict business reveals an increasing skepticism among people regarding corporate management ethics and morality.

Some theoreticians are of the view that organizations are socially responsible for protecting and improving overall societal welfare, in addition to looking after their personal interests (Davis and Blomstrom, 1980, p. 6), while others assume a narrower stance, believing that the idea of social responsibility must only extend to societal issues brought about partially or wholly by the organization (Fitch, 1976, p. 38). Cultural development in organization Companies in the U.S. may need to tailor their operations to suit different local, state, and national rules and regulations.

Those with international operations may need to tailor their structures, products/services and managerial practices to different cultural preferences, values, and expectations. Support institution availability, financial costs, and fund availability may shape a firm's decision to purchase or manufacture new products. Hiring, layoff procedures, salaries, wages and incentives may be influenced by economic conditions. Firms may also be considerably affected by technological change. Robotics use influences skill types and level required in employees.

Information technology allows as well as necessitates alteration in intra-organizational and inter-organizational interaction and communication systems (CONTINGENCY APPROACH To MANAGEMENT, n.d.). Planned culture development can transform organizations, engaging employees' minds and hearts, ensuring.