“Both academia and industry have been continously debating the concepts of “modernism” and “post-modernism” with respect to the forms of organization that have evolved over time, constantly trying to draw the red line between them and listing down the advantages and disadvantages of each” (Loncar, 2005). However, in reality, such a clear demarcation is complicated by the level of subjectivity surrounding such organizational studies, that often causes both of them to intermingle with each other despite, their respective individual and independently differentiated status.
“Modern organization or bureaucracy, is characterized by a strong focus on the structuring of processes organizations in a manner that would facilitate effective attainment of the organizational goals” (Anon., n.d.). This bureaucratic approach “views an organization as a bounded and defined entity, following a stringent logic of standardization manifested in the division of labor and authority, hierarchy of offices, specification and categorization of office functions, merit-based recruitment and promotion decisions, and a coherently hierarchical system of discipline and control, in order to accomplish precisely definable goals” (Loncar, 2005). It was proposed by Max Weber, one of the key brains behind the classical organizational theory. Jeff further explains the three fundamental principles that form the basis of such a rational bureaucratic organization: formalization of rules, procedures, policies, reports etc. communicated in a standardized written form; instrumentalism or a “facilitating” role of the organization in transforming the assigned tasks and delivered instructions into achieved goals, using a pre-determined, routine and algorithmic approach; and rational-legal authority, that reiterates the birth of authority from a formal position, which is directly derived from objective personal credentials and qualifications and merits, thereby, circumventing the misconception of nepotism, tradition or charisma as the loci of control. However, the last decade, has seen the bureaucratic paradigm receive widespread criticism from all corners of the world, mostly for its crime of making the organizations reduce man to a machine and adopt an apathetic attitude towards its employees, who firstly are ‘human beings’, at a fundamental level. A bureaucratic organizational mindset is frequently accused of charting out job descriptions, based on the organizational needs and goals, rather than the employees’ own interests & aptitude levels, thereby, ending up witnessing person-job misfit scenarios on many occasions. The work assigned is divided into many smaller chunks, and each employee is made accountable for his/her accomplishment, which is exercised using stringent controls based on experience curve and economies of scale , the most common out of which is the stick and carrot policy, used to induce desired job behavior, whereby, a job done well is rewarded with tangible positive outcomes like pay raises, bonuses, promotions etc., and a penalty in the form of sacking, demotion, and reduced bonus may be imposed as a punitive measure to discourage any undesired job-related behavior. The top management governing its employees’ career fate, also hardly bothers about face-to-face communication with them on all matters affecting their organizational relationship, and instead strictly adheres to a top-down “one-way” hierachical communication policy whereby, the communication also takes place only to deliver job instructions, that are expected to be executed with an unquestioning obedience, thereby, causing a “wastage of the employees’ intelligence capacities” (Loncar, 2005). Consequently, the employees never get to know what is really happening within their company, and are forced to make their own conjectures through the pieces of the puzzle given to them in the form of standard job instructions, making them gradually develop alienation and demotivation towards the organization. What’s worse is that a pure bureaucracy is devoid of an employee’s “informal daily life comprising of healthy informal lateral connections and communications, group interactions and a conducive social climate to job performance, directly trying to curb the normal gregarious instinct in man” (Loncar, 2005).
Post-modern or non bureaucratic organizations, on the other hand, are highly “turbulent and unpredictable due to the dynamism surrounding them, as manifested in their increasing rate of changes, global and diverse outlook, and rapidly taking place technological advancements in the form of electronic revolutions, that necessitates a flexible and adaptable attitude both on the part of organizations and their employees, in order to facilitate increased win-win working relationships. This adaptability is mostly visible in the form of flexi-hours, work from home arrangements, job rotation, cross-functional exposure, telecommuting, lean & decentralized organizational structures and increased employee empowerment and participation in management decisions etc.” (Loncar, 2005), as is the case with most of the Apples and Googles of today. All this indicates a growing realization within the organizations of the importance of employees’ behavior, that is the most important and the only living resource with them.
In fact, the seeds for such a corporate post-modernism set-up were sown by its past tyrannical bureaucratic predecessor, owing to the rapidly increasing global perception of its fundamental inadequacy in creating a constructively progressive organizational climate of growth and development. “The first step in this direction was the Hawthorne studies conducted between 1927 and 1932, that led to the discoveries of importance of human behavior in organizations. This revelation was given an additional impetus by the emergence of the Human Relations Movement that discovered and opined that employee job satisfaction/dissatisfaction was a key determinant of on-the job performance” (Anon., n.d.). “In contrast to bureaucracy, post-modernistic organization is boundary-less, with a worldwide presence as pronounced by corporate restructuring events like joint ventures, collaborations, take-overs, mergers and acquisitions etc., that are a normal feature of contemporary firms. Even the responsibility for organizational success lies with the organization as a whole, rather than a chosen few ‘top brass’ executives and senior managers, inviting increased support of employees at all levels, which is only possible if they are convincingly persuaded to work in tandem with the organizational vision, mission and strategy” (Loncar, 2005), which automatically necessitates opening up of increased two-way communication channels between the employees and the management. Also, in order to be able to contribute effectively towards organizational success, the employees are compulsorily required to continously reinvent and upgrade themselves through rigorous training & development interventions that fortify their exisiting skill-sets and augment them with new ones. All this increases their loyalty, job satisfaction and motivation levels.
However, despite all these pluses, post-modern non-bureaucratic organizations are also not free from defects. Their biggest flaw is that they can only be implemented where the company has a mature corporate culture laden with capable leadership, clearly identifiable organizational goals, respect for individual, a high-level of self discipline and work ethic. If forcibly thrust upon an organization with a shoddy corporate culture, it might not only back-fire but also meet active resistance efforts by the employees. Another drawback is that such fast paced corporate restructuring, triggered by the organization’s ambitious growth plans, also spurs a chain of layoff rounds, that only increases job insecurity amongst employees, making the organizational leaders face the daunting task of “managing the ‘insides’ of the workers in the form of their fears, hopes and aspirations, rather than their behaviors directly” (Loncar, 2005).
In the light of the discussion so far, we would like to conclude that despite its share of demerits, the post-modern form of organization is still far better than its bureaucratic counterpart, for the simple reason, that it duly recognizes an employee or a worker first as a human being, which he/she was initially born as before taking on the mantle of a worker, janitor, employee, manager or even the CEO, reminding us time and again about the relevance and efficacy of “man” as the most important and the only living and breathing business resource in any organization, solely by virtue of his ability to make things move by getting the work done from the other remaining lifeless resources.
References
Anon., n.d.Organizational Behavior - Text & Cases. [e-book]. New Age Publishers. pp.4-26.Available through: www.newagepublishers.com/samplechapter/000920.pdf. [Accessed 15 May 2012].
Loncar, D., 2005. Post-Modern Organization and New Forms of Organizational Control. Economic Annals. [e-journal]. 165, pp.105-19. Available at: www.doiserbia.nb.rs/ft.aspx?id=0013-32640565105L. [Accessed 15 May 2012].
