Organizational effectiveness can be described as the extent of the realisation of the organizational goals. An effective organization thus is one that realises its goals while a non-effective organization refers to the organization that fails to realise its goals. It is imperative to note that the level of effectiveness differ. In addition, scholars have observed that the constituents of effectiveness differ depending on the nature of the organization, the school of thought its leaders subscribe to and finally the objects that guide the organizational structure and conceptual framework. In addition, it is essential to appreciate the body of theories that govern organizational effectiveness. The theories can be classified into the following groups the classical organizational theories, neo-classical organizational theory, systems theory, power and politics theory, postmodernism theory and organizational culture and reform movement theory. The paper shall apply the theories in the management of criminal justice personnel.
The classical theory asserts that the organizations are mechanical in nature and that the principles of management are universal in nature. The critical theory in this category is bureaucracy advocated by Max Weber. In applying a bureaucracy in the management of personnel, work would be divided into specialised units and conferred upon specialised persons from the pull of personnel. In addition, logic shall dictate the decision making process with the most qualified personnel for a department of work earning the job out of his competence. In addition to bureaucracy, the classical theory advocates for scientific management of work through an administrative process as proposed in the theories by Taylor and Fayol separately. In this breadth, work would be analysed scientifically, allocated according to time slots and evaluated using scientific models. In the criminal justice system, this involves quantification of work sets and assigning of personnel each set for execution. In also equally entertains the collective analysis of employee performance using scientific methodologies such as looking at returns versus input in work input and output.
The neo-classical theory introduced a slight deviation from the scientific application in the work environment. It is premised on the fact that organizations serve humanity and that both organizations and humanity need each other. An application of the same in criminal justice personnel management would, hence, pay attention to humanity needs and reconcile them to the organizational needs in attempts to realise organizational effectiveness. In this breadth, it would essential to apply Barnard’s suggestion which requires the manager to lead from the top by creating a sense of purpose in the workforce, a communication mechanism and a spirit of motivation and willingness in the workforce. This would facilitate the flow of work processes in the concern and impact positively on the organization.
The contingency theory also called the modern structuralist theory relates to the application of organic and mechanic forms of organizations in consonance with the environment at the workplace. In applying this in management, a manager in the criminal justice system would first identify dynamic and stable environments and then apply the appropriate form of organization. In addition, the theory necessarily requires of the organizational leaders to apply differentiation and integration relevantly in the management processes. In that vein, it would be essential for the manager to integrate related functions into same departments and separate different functions into different departments for harmonisation of work and avoidance of conflict in the execution of work in the criminal justice system.
The systems theory is a combination of the works of Katz and Khan. They identify the dynamism inherent in organizations and advise for the harmonious correlation of the processes in any system. In criminal justice personnel management, systems theory application would demand for the intertwining of processes despite their complex and unique nature into a cohesive product that achieves the desired goals. In this vein, it would be proper for the manager to agree on a set of predetermined objectives and trigger varying personnel towards the collective realisation of the objectives. It also demands for a plural application of management that is cognizant of various personnel differences.
Power and politics theory is attributed to the contributions of French and Raven who reject the notion that organizations are rational institutions. Instead, they argue that organizational goals are achieved through a bargained negotiation between individuals in the system. An application of this theory necessitates negotiation with the personnel by the manager where the manager offers the personnel rewards, privileges and in turn gets the realisation of the goals. This system also envisions a coercive managerial approach by the manager in which coercive elements such as authority and legitimacy are used by the manager to get personnel working for the overall goals realisation.
Organizational culture relates to the reliance on the culture for the forward progress of the organization. In this light, the personnel should be able to share the cultural values, beliefs and ways of doing things for the ultimate achievement of goals. An application of the same in criminal justice personnel management would be seen in a cohesive managerial approach that protects the cultural values and beliefs of the organization.
Finally, post modernism is premised on the absence of universal principles or formal structure. It appreciates the dynamism, complexity and unpredictability of management and workplace environments. To this extent, it entertains the application of the best form of procedure in the context of the presented situation. The application of the same in criminal justice personnel management would be marked by flexibility, decentralised decision making and a degree of independence conferred upon the workers.
In order to exert control in an organizational set up, the manager could employ different methods. The manager could be charismatic, persuasive, authoritative or coercive. These approaches shall be briefly explained. A charismatic approach entails control through earning the admiration and hopes of the employees so that they easily believe in the courses and follow the manager’s instructions without questioning them. A persuasive approach entails the use of persuasion where the manager engages the employees and explains to them the need to do or act in a certain way and they agree to comply with the instructions.
The manager may employ his authority to get employees to work under his instructions and consequently control them. This approach could be applied through laying out rules of engagement with pre-set penalties imposed on the breakers of the rules. An extreme form of authoritative control is manifested in a coercive approach where employees are compelled to conform to the instructions. Disobedience to compliance in a coercive approach earns employees sackings, reprimands and a denigrated treatment by the manager. This approach is useful only in strictly command based approach such as the military settings. However, its application in modern day management may be justified in the management of unskilled labourers who may not be receptive to reasoning.
References
Hassan , F., & Shah, B. (2011). Effect of Leaders’ Styles of Decision Making on Perceived Organizational. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(22), 1-11.
Sariolghalam, N., & Abrahams, C. (2010). The Enigma of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory in the Area of Organizational Effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Management, 1-8.
Yulk, G. (2006). Managerial Leadership: A Review of Theory and Research. Journal of Management , 2(15), 251-289.
