Business Week 2
Business Week 2
There are many different sources to explain organizational theory that have been developed over time. The principal theory for classical organizational theory is Weber’s scientific management approach, (Lounsbury, M.). The scientific management approach is based on the notion of planning of work to achieve efficiency, standardization, simplification, and specialization, (Lounsbury, M.). This highlights the trust between management and worker, (Lounsbury, M.). The bureaucratic approach discusses the organization as being a part of broader society, (Lounsbury, M.). Administrative theory is based on the importance of planning, training, organizing, and coordinating functions, (Lounsbury, M.). Branching off from these traditional theories, we move into neoclassical theory, which emphasizes individual or group behavior in determining productivity, (Lounsbury, M.).
When considering modern approaches, the first approach is the systems approach, which categorizes the organization as being comprised of mini-ecosystems that are interdependent, (Lounsbury, M.). The socio-technical approach engages the organization as both social and technical that interacts among themselves, (Lounsbury, M.). In analyzing these modern approaches, it is easy to see how competitive advantage played a role in changing the structure of these organizations. In the modern trends, one can observe a necessity to know the social aspect of the business in order to be able to anticipate the consumer and know them. Knowing the consumer, comes from knowing the employees and developing them to get the ultimate ROI. Through these practices, it will be much more streamlined for an organization to achieve the competitive advantage because their employees will have extreme motivation to produce and to produce effectively.
Theme II:
A growing problem that is occurring in modern companies is what has been coined “the boundaryless corporation.” When considering what a “boundaryless corporation” means, it is important to think of the visualization of separating the divide between suppliers, buyers, and management of a company, (Hirschhorn, L.). An example of this sort of business is IKEA. IKEA essentially eliminates the divide between buyer, supplier, and management because you are the assembler of their furniture. IKEA has a very liberal business policy and it is seen as a threat in the industry of human resources because many feel that there is a necessary component of every organization to keep the lines between employees, suppliers, and customers separate in order to foster the most effective results, (Hirschhorn, L.). The criticisms that are seen for companies like IKEA is that the lack of traditional structure greatly limits the company’s potential for proper and organized growth, (Hierschhorn, L.).
There are many theories as to why this has happened to modern organizations, but the reality is that these changes in human resources and relation to customers are primarily caused by the change of the role of human resources to be that of a consultant and strategist rather than an invoice specialist. By using HR in this way, companies have made a great deal of headway in finding better personality fits for their prospective positions and leadership programs. The debate is still strong as to whether companies like IKEA represent a better business model for the long term or whether it is wise to return to our former more closed off consumer relation policies. The reason that I feel that the models like IKEA work better is that they play into the modern technologies with smart phones and social media. This is why it is likely that we will see more companies moving in this direction in the foreseeable future.
References
Hirschhorn, L. Harvard Business Review. The New Boundaries of the “Boundaryless” Company. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/1992/05/the-new-boundaries-of-the-boundaryless-company.
Lounsbury, M. Cornell University. The New Structuralism in Organizational Theory. Retrieved from: http://org.sagepub.com/content/10/3/457.abstract/.
