Discussion of how Weber’s Idea of Formal & Substantive Rationality Fit into Scientific Management and Human Relations Theory.
Introduction
Society and the world of economics has experienced tremendous changes over the years. In past decades, no instant access existed for communications, and management was often limited to directly dealing with those in his or her own country. In other words, it was a rare occurrence for most businesses to have the good fortune and capital to travel globally, expanding their commerce worldwide. Of course, today in the digital era, electronic communications abound enabling people in the UK to dialogue with someone as far away as China or Australia, in real-time. Despite these number of changes in the modern world, managers and leadership in organizations still have to face the important issue of critically examining different theories.
Max Weber and his contribution to business theory is well-known. According to one scholar, Weber identified four types of rationalization theory which compared to one another, including: theoretical, practical, substantive, and formal (Kalberg 1980). Each sort carries its own idea of distinction. However, the two main concepts of Weber’s rationalization theory will only focus the discussion on formal rationality, and substantive rationality. The basic understanding of rationalization, in terms of the concepts being explored in this essay, should be defined at the beginning to avoid any confusion. Thus, the general idea of rationalization may be described as a sort of orientation to reality that considers means-and-ends of whatever action in a deliberately straightforward way that is pragmatic as well (PN 2012). The academic disciplines of sociology, business, and science heavily rely upon its basic tenets.
The task of this essay is to explain what Weber meant by the distinction between formal rationality and substantive rationality. Then, by using these two concepts, the analysis will try to make a cogent connection to the theories of Scientific Management and Human Relations Theory. Perhaps they will align in meaning and significance, or perhaps not. This exploration hopes to determine if they are formally rational, substantively rational, both, or neither.
Discussion
Explain What Weber Meant
Weber made the general framework of his understanding of these key concepts of rationality quite clearly, although applications of the principles have spread throughout business management, economics, and sociology. According to one solid source, Weber defined the term ‘formal rationality’ in the context of market-economic action in reference to how impersonal quantification calculations can be extended, when applied to risk assessment (Formal Rationality 1998). It is important to stress at this juncture, that business endeavors and actions cannot be realistically separated from the quality of society, or its accompanying pressures and situations in the economy. However, Weber connected his basic understanding and theory of rationality to a social analysis, which looked at social actions in modern life. He believed that studying sociological matters should use an analysis grounded in firmly attaching meanings to actions, which were wholly subjective (Thomas 2015). Beyond the ideas of formal and substantive rationality, to this end, Weber further broke down rationality into divisions that applied to social classifications.
Substantive rationality, according to the Weber framework, contrasts from the means-to-an-end style of formal rationality. Moving beyond that sort of calculation, substantive rationality from Weber’s perspective, entails a goal-oriented observation that individuals may consider when trying to achieve some ultimate end or values (Elwell 2005). The idea is that the goal-aimed decision is still basically rational, in terms of its not being purely technically formal, but is more of a holistic sort of thinking which obviously would not be dominant in a bureaucratic organization. In other words, the substantive rationality is more aware of the rubric of social life it occurs in, and considers people’s values, and the realistic constraints of the economy. Family, religious, and social values are either actively, or subliminally, taken into account.
Obviously, and as a reminder to the reader, this essay must discuss the correlation between Weber’s theories of formal rationality and substantive rationality, to an analysis of Scientific Management and Human Relations Theory. First of all, a proper evaluation and clarification must begin with a description of what these two theories are. Everyone involved in business studies, or real-life scenarios in management, understands that the basic theory of Scientific Management largely emerged from the work of Frederick Taylor, and Percival White. It is useful to review the history of Frederick Taylor.
Frederick Taylor, as a key author of the management principle and theory of the Scientific Management style, concocted its principles from the viewpoint of his station in life as a mechanical engineer. When his business essays were initially published, back in the 1911 years, Taylor was widely read and had great influence and was very concerned with national efficiency, even to the point of environmental disruption of soil erosion into the seas (Taylor 1911). The industrial age was getting off to a strong kickoff in the United States, although World War I would commence just a few short years later. The country’s mentality, in alignment with Taylor’s thought, embraced the need to conserve its resources, preserve forestry, while simultaneously realizing and capitalizing on opportunities in management methods to enhance the fruits of industry (Taylor 1911). One explanation (cited in Taylor 1911) introduced Scientific Management as having definitive laws as a foundation, and incorporating its principles as linking to all human activities – from the smallest of businesses to huge corporations.
The core mission of Scientific Management theory sought to totally maximize the company’s greatest potential of excellence, in terms of prosperity and development. The distinguishing mark of Scientific Management, in contrast to a vague ideology, was that every individual worker had the responsibility to maximize efficiency in performance of the highest grade possible, within the limits of the person’s natural abilities (Taylor 1911). Ideally, the theory posited that both employer and employee would be able to benefit from a mutual prosperity, while engaging a common interest. Nowadays, this idea of worker and employer sharing a common interest may seem a bit crazy. But Taylor (1911) believed that one way to achieve success with the Scientific Management practices in business was to minimize the “expenditure of human effort,” and use natural resources, machinery, capital, and infrastructure (buildings) in maximum ways. So, if you think about it, the theory reflects a systematic solution, more akin to Weber’s formal rationality.
In the case of Human Relations Theory, one can sense by the very title of the concept, that this managerial style has more in common with a psychological approach to the situation. In other words, the gist of Human Relations Theory has to do with people in terms of relating to the human soul. Normal thinking will tell you that employers cannot get the best work out of their internal staff by acting in a dictatorial manner. Originally stemming from experiments from Hawthorne in the Chicago-area Western Electric Company, Human Relations Theory generally had the idea of a worthwhile value in studying people’s behavior, in the context of workplace organizational psychology, to find out how their state-of-mind affected productivity, relationships, and motivation. Although this theory may at the outset, seem more humane, it was based on a movement which is still being debated today. There are no simplistic answers or pure forms of any theoretic view. Nevertheless, the question before us now is to try and connect Weber’s formal rationality and substantive rationality to the theories of Scientific Management, and the Human Relations Theory concept.
Rationality Concepts with Which Theories
We learned that Weber’s formal rationality rested upon a basis of technical assessment, from a more objective point of view, and was usually connected to business situations involving a large bureaucratic organization. Obviously, formal rationality can effectively be compared to the Scientific Management theory right off the bat because both entail a formalized manner of being technical in its approach. Each approach tries to rely upon a kind of systematic, rational-technical way, to improve workplace standards for efficiency and trying to be pragmatic in applying theory to arrive at solutions. But there are subtle differences between Weber’s formal rationality, and Taylor’s classic Scientific Management approach.
It is impossible to convey exactly what Weber may have meant by how to distinguish formal rationality, from substantive rationality, other than what he wrote. But, management theory is a progressive line of thought. The authors of management theory were deep, and very smart thinkers who realized that technologies and human behavior would need to be weighed in the balance of maximizing business operations, and efficiency. In general, it is agreed upon that many of the larger corporate bureaucracies reflect formal rationality, which can be observed by their systems of hierarchy (Elwell 2005). Elwell (2005) also argued that Weber’s formal rationality did not sit too friendly with American audiences, because in the minds of United States citizens and business people the idea represented artificiality, and superficiality.
Conclusion
While it is true that not all will agree, Weber’s concepts of formal rationality and substantive rationality, only somewhat conform to section of Scientific Management and Human Relations Theory. It is also important to note that not all modern-day leadership agrees with using only a single theory of application in business. The global economy is irrefutably very complex. Business and political situations in the international landscape change every day. According to scholars (Tadajewski and Jones 2012), in the current literature, modern managers should be reminded that Taylor’s Scientific Management principle actually meant to integrate an appreciation for productivity’s connection to consumption, in a balanced way. If a final conclusion of whether Weber’s theories of formal rationality, and substantive rationality, actually fully and completely represent the Scientific Management or Human Relations Theory, the answer would be an unequivocal ‘no.’ The reason why is because formal rationality is similar to the Scientific Management method, but fails to be concerned about sustainability. Taylor was a pioneer to think about conservation, while simultaneously wanting to maximize production excellence.
Furthermore, not all management theorist in today’s business sector agree with Weber. For example, Parsons (2006) argues that Weber’s work only has a “limited relevance” to our present-day socio-economic society, and that his formal rationality theory assumes a state of complete uncertainty. Studies come and studies go. The fact is that today all managers must be aware of cultural differences, sustainability, productivity, and saving overly blown budgets. There is so much talk of World War III in the air, and rumors of its imminence, that management skills must discover the human factors of employees while also taking into consideration best practices in productive excellence. In other words, all of these aspects are crucial.
References
Elwell, FW 2005, Max Weber the Irrationality Factor. Available from: <http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Weber/Whome4.htm>. [17 February 2016].
Human Relations Theory and People Management, 2005. Available from: <http://www.corwin.com/upm-data/9805_039184ch02.pdf>. [17 February 2016].
Kalberg, S 1980, ‘Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History’, Chicago Journals – The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 85, No. 5, pp. 1145-1179. Available from: Boston University <http://www.bu.edu/sociology/files/2010/03/Weberstypes.pdf>. [17 February 2016].
Parsons, SD 2006, ‘Max Weber and Economic Sociology’, American Journal Of Economics & Sociology, 65, 5, pp. 1111-1124, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 February 2016.
PN 2012, Journey of PhD Studies. 6 February 2012. PN: Blog: Rationality, Formal Rationality and Substantive Rationality. Available from: <http://journeyofphdstudies.blogspot.com/2012/02/rationality-formal-rationality-and.html>. [17 February 2016].
Rationalization and Bureaucracy, 1999. Available from: <http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o14f99.htm>. [17 February 2016].
Tadajewski, M, & Jones, D 2012, ‘Scientific marketing management and the emergence of the ethical marketing concept’, Journal Of Marketing Management, 28, 1/2, pp. 37-61, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 17 February 2016.
Taylor, F 1911, The Principles of Scientific Management, Harper Bros., New York. *{Link to source: http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST363-7.1.3-Frederick-W-Taylor.pdf }.
Thomas, W 2015, Max Weber on Rationality in Social Action, in Sociological Analysis, and in Modern Life. 7 March 2015. Will Thomas: Blog. Available from: <http://www.rational-action.com/hello-world/>. [17 February 2016].
