Organizational Theory Applied to Fine Dining: A Server's View
This paper applies organizational theory concepts to the author's firsthand experience as a fine dining server at a country club. Part One identifies the rational model as the dominant theoretical framework governing the workplace, citing its hierarchical management structure, high degree of formalization, and clearly defined goals. The paper evaluates both the strengths and limitations of this model in practice. Part Two examines internal constituencies and informal organizations within the same setting, exploring their defining characteristics, their relationship to formal and informal processes, and their respective effects on organizational complexity — including issues of clique formation, favoritism, and interdepartmental collaboration.
- Role and Workplace Setting: Author's duties as a fine dining server
- Dominant Organizational Model: The Rational System: Rational model identified and justified with workplace evidence
- Effectiveness and Limitations of the Rational Model: Strengths and weaknesses of rational system in practice
- Internal Constituencies and Informal Organizations: Characteristics of formal groups and informal social formations
- Formal and Informal Processes: How constituencies and informal groups relate to formal processes
- Impact on Organizational Complexity: Cliques, favoritism, and coordination effects on complexity
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds abstract theoretical concepts — rational, natural, and open systems — in vivid, concrete workplace observations, making the analysis immediately credible and readable.
- Maintains a clear two-part structure that first establishes the dominant model and then extends analysis to internal constituencies, creating logical progression rather than a list of disconnected points.
- Honestly acknowledges the limitations of the identified model (rigidity, lack of flexibility, ignoring the external environment), demonstrating critical rather than purely descriptive thinking.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper consistently uses the "identify framework → apply to evidence → evaluate critically" pattern. Each theoretical claim from Scott, Kenny, or Onday is followed immediately by a specific workplace example (e.g., the server who cannot deviate from duties without supervisor approval), and then assessed for effectiveness or failure. This three-step move — concept, evidence, evaluation — is a hallmark of strong applied organizational analysis.
Structure breakdown
The paper is divided into two formal parts. Part One opens with a workplace description, surveys three organizational models from the literature, selects and justifies the rational model, and closes with a balanced effectiveness assessment. Part Two introduces internal constituencies and informal organizations through characteristic analysis, examines their alignment with formal and informal processes, and concludes with a discussion of their separate and sometimes conflicting effects on organizational complexity. References follow APA formatting throughout.
Role and Workplace Setting
I work as a fine dining server at a country club. In this role, I am responsible for ensuring that members receive immediate and appropriate attention upon being seated. I address the unique needs of members, take their orders, and place those orders through the POS system. I also follow the relevant serving procedures when placing dishes before guests, and I continue to engage guests throughout their visit to ensure an excellent dining experience and to fulfill any additional meal and drink requests. From time to time, supervisors may assign additional duties, particularly during special events. To function effectively in this role, I work closely with colleagues including bussers and cooks, as well as management and supervisors.
Dominant Organizational Model: The Rational System
Before identifying the dominant theoretical model of organization at my place of employment, it is worth noting that organizational theory literature identifies three principal models: rational, natural, and open systems (Onday, 2016). The rational model perceives organizations as systems with highly formalized social structures that are oriented toward the fulfillment of clearly defined goals (Scott, 2003). The natural systems perspective holds that organizations are composed of participants pursuing both common and individual interests, yet who recognize the importance of sustaining the organization and regard it as a vital resource (Scott, 2003). The open systems perspective, by contrast, does not treat the organization as a closed entity. Instead, it regards organizations as embedded in their environments and sustained by external inflows of information, resources, and personnel (Scott and Davis, 2015).
With this framework in mind, the dominant theoretical model at my place of employment is the rational model. As this perspective holds, the primary orientation of organizations is the fulfillment of clearly defined objectives, and organizational social structures exhibit a high degree of formalization. Several features of the rational model informed this identification. First, the management structure at my workplace is largely hierarchical. Top management is concerned with overall strategy formulation; middle-level managers oversee the day-to-day operations of the country club; and supervisors assign specific roles to frontline employees, issue guidelines on role performance, and ensure that service quality standards are consistently met.
Second, there is a high degree of formalization. All operations are governed by clear procedures, and individuals have well-defined roles. Unless otherwise directed, all employees are expected to focus on their assigned duties. As a server, for example, I am not expected to perform the duties of a busser without a supervisor's instruction. This formalization makes the country club function, in many respects, as a bureaucratic organization — one in which no employee is expected to step outside their mandate. I cannot deviate from my responsibilities without the express authorization of my immediate supervisor. The high degree of formality thus makes the rational model the most appropriate framework for describing this workplace.
Third, the country club pursues clearly defined goals. The club has a stated mission, vision, and set of objectives. Its mission statement is designed to capture the primary purpose of the organization — specifically, serving its members and providing access to excellent recreational amenities and an environment conducive to social interaction. Long-term, medium-term, and short-term goals have been formulated to support this mission. All staff work toward the fulfillment of this stated mission. To the extent that achieving this mission constitutes a central organizational interest, the rational model remains the most fitting framework.
Effectiveness and Limitations of the Rational Model
The rational model does promote certain forms of effectiveness at the country club. Most notably, it eliminates ambiguity regarding employee duties and responsibilities. Because individual roles are clearly defined and enforced through the formalized structure, opportunities for duplication of effort are reduced. Additionally, the model promotes organizational stability and operational predictability. The high degree of formalization and the clear definition of objectives help the country club avoid a chaotic work environment. The established procedures and rules enable management to anticipate employee behaviors and relationships, which supports effective planning.
However, the rational model also generates notable inefficiencies. For one, the country club has struggled to foster employee flexibility and creativity. Many guests are affluent individuals with highly specific preferences that do not conform to standard expectations. Allowing greater flexibility would likely help employees better address this diversity of needs. Instead, the highly formalized structure produces rigidity. Furthermore, the rational model tends to treat the organization as a closed system, ignoring the fact that the country club exists within a broader environment. To better serve its members, the club would benefit from attending to the role of external stakeholders — including the local community and suppliers — who, as Scott (2003) notes, can be instrumental sources of information and resources.
References
Blomberg, J. (2020). Organization Theory: Management and Leadership Analysis. SAGE Publications.
Dipboye, R.L. (2015). The Emerald Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Emerald Group Publishing.
Kenny, J.P. (1954). Police and human relations in management. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 45(2), 222–228.
Miles, J.A. (2012). Management and Organization Theory. John Wiley & Sons.
Onday, O. (2016). The relationship between concepts of rational, natural and open systems: Managing organizations today. International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 5(4), 40–48.
Shafritz, J.M., Ott, J.S., & Jang, Y.S. (2015). Classics of Organization Theory. Cengage Learning.
Scott, W.R. (2003). Organizations Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Pearson Educational International.
Scott, W.R., & Davis, G.F. (2015). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives. Routledge.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.