Organizational Paradigms - Essay Example

? ORGANIZATIONAL PARADIGMS number Organizational Paradigms An organization is a significant element of the social and economic environment. In addition, various parts of any given organization play a significant role in its environment. On the other hand, an organizational strategy assists in improving the effectiveness of a firm and its efforts towards customer satisfaction. The human resource and other tools of a firm help it in working according to the set goals and objectives. Strategic management gives an analysis of main initiatives assumed by a firm’s top managers on behalf of the owners. The analysis entails the resources and the organization’s performance in its external environments. This report describes the organizational paradigms and their impact on the process of strategic management. Introduction An organization defines its own ways of identifying its operations in its environment in order to guarantee profitable performance and customer satisfaction. This is achieved through the implementation of a given structure that determines the functions that warrant the objectives of the company. This is aligned to the key objective of a firm that is solely maximizing its profits. The organizational paradigms key issue assists in describing the structural design that is suitable to the accomplishment of the functional requirements (CARTER 2010). Therefore, organizational paradigms imply the fundamental presuppositions that unnoticeably define and shape an organizations structures, policies, and operations. Elements of Organizational Paradigms Organizational paradigms consist of four main elements according to its scientific description. The symbolic generalization is an element that gives ways that problems within the paradigm are posed and solved. The second element is the metaphysical assumptions (STRATI 2000). This element represents the taken-as-given beliefs about the issues that will be treated as real regarding the organizations operations and environment. The third element describes values that embody the fundamental priorities and alternatives of the problems pursued and the main objectives to adhere (DONALDSON 2001). Lastly, exemplars are an organizational paradigm’s element that deals with those worked-out methods and solutions that exhibit the whole world perception as a rational form. Rational Systems This is an organizational paradigm whose systems are highlighted by high specificity of formation, formalization, objectives, and a conscious purposeful synchronization among members in an effort to establish an efficient operated company. These characteristics of the objectives drive the mannerisms of the company’s members (HASSARD 1995). It also establishes boundaries through which the organization puts efforts to succeed in relation to the firms goals or community within which it seeks to aspire. In addition, the rational system is usually demonstrated by Taylor’s Scientific Management concept of methodical evaluation of an employee’s productivity seeking to set given standards of effectiveness and substitute the arbitrary decisions of front line managers (SCOTT 2003). Furthermore, the rational system addresses management effectiveness by establishing extensive administrative standards through concepts such as hierarchical organizational structures, unity-of-command, and departmentalization. Moreover, it ensures the homogeneity of operations to offer control and focus needed by a firm and its managerial service. The paradigm also offers a different viewpoint that demonstrates the model that companies need structures and procedures to serve and sustain their survival (SCOTT & DAVIS 2007). An example of an implemented rational system is the hierarchical centralized structure of the national security sector of our country. This entails the decision-making process that directs the sector. Each of the constituent part of the sector implements a good deal of the rational system concept. The disciplined forces services are usually affiliated with the rational systems (SELESHI 2000). This is because of the formalization, departmentalization, unity of command and the concepts of control and goals specificity. The automobile industry also portrays the implementation of the rational systems paradigm during its production of cars and other car-related subsystems. This also includes the assembly line departments during the production process (SCOTT & DAVIS 2007). Natural systems This organizational paradigm differs from the rational system with respect to the terms they concentrate on. The natural systems concentrate on the interest and aims of the person excluding the specific goals of an entire organization. Therefore, the natural system manifests individual goals in the natural system-based firms (SCOTT & DAVIS 2007). The system has three distinct models namely functional, consensus and conflict. In the functional model, the mannerisms of the members are explained in terms of their results. Therefore, the required results define the behavior or responsibilities of the members in whatever level of management. Under the consensus model, a person importance is focused on meeting the survival requirements of a firm. In addition, the conflict model focuses on the need for a healthy conflict within an organization that is maintaining an ordered system (SCOTT 2003). The natural systems models are portrayed in various real life situations individually. For instance, consultancy organizations in the country utilize the functional model on its individual consultants’ roles and their assigned tasks as internal consultants in their respective organizations. The required results describe the mannerisms the consultants play on all levels of management. In addition, the consensus model is well portrayed in the dynamic structure in the entire research and development environment. This is because the research and development firms develop and change as their environments operate in changes (JONES 2010). The country’s political environment displays an example of the conflict model in the natural systems paradigm. This is because party identification can at times dominate personal needs, whereas there is a need for survival and success in the political field. Moreover, the tension between the political parties is the source of stability (YOON & HUCHINKE 2005). Open Systems This system was established later than the rational and natural systems approach. The model’s creation took place in parts because of the firm’s intricacies and the looseness of connections among them. This is due to the instability of the organizations operations and their related environments. The open systems in an organization entail the participation of the members who do not usually maintain the common goals or seek the survival of a firm. Therefore, the members of the open systems of a firm have momentary coalitions. The system allows for interdependence in operations especially in the dynamic industries (SCOTT & DAVIS 2007). Small organizations in the telecommunications industry display the implementation of the open systems paradigm. Such firms offer diverse levels of services for their customers where each customer is charged at different price levels. Moreover, these prices are dynamic in the market due to competition and complexity of operations. Under this system, the small firms have the ability to adjust to the needs of their customers. The open systems enable them to maintain their resources with respect to their environment (TIRPAK et al. 2006). References CARTER, I. E. (2010). Human behavior in the social environment: a social systems approach. Somerset, Aldine Transaction. DONALDSON, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publ. HASSARD, J. (1995). Sociology and organization theory: positivism, paradigms, and postmodernity. Cambridge [England], Cambridge University Press. JONES, G.R. (2010). Organizational theory, design, and change (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. SCOTT, W. R. (2003). Organizations: rational, natural, and open systems. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall. SCOTT, W. R., & DAVIS, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson Prentice Hall. SELESHI SISAYE. (2000). Organization change and development in management control systems: process innovation for internal auditing and management accounting. Greenwich, Conn, JAI. STRATI, A. (2000). Theory and method in organization studies: paradigms and choices. London, SAGE. TIRPAK, T., MILLER, R., SCHWARTZ, L., & KASHDAN, D. (2006). R&D structure in a changing world. Research Technology Management. 49(5), 19-26. YOON, S., & HUCHINKE, P. (2005). Systems theory and technology: Lenses to analyze an organization. Performance Improvement, 44(4). 29-32. Read More