Understanding Work and Organization: Weber's Management Theory - Assignment Example

Understanding work and Organisation: Different aspects of the Concept of Rationality and how these are identified in different Management Theories Abstract For this paper, the theme chosen is Max Weber management theory. Seminars 3, 6, and 8 will be used as the basis for the concepts covered in the discussion. The paper will highlight and examine all the issues covered in the three seminars, including their implications and dynamics. The paper will also include references to other materials associated with the topics discussed in the three seminars. Introduction Max Weber’s management theory, also known as the bureaucratic management theory, is one of the most common management concepts in contemporary organisations. In the modern organisational environment, managers are faced with numerous complex issues that require dynamic, flexible, and effective strategies to address. Max Weber’s management theory provides a practical and visionary approach to organisational management. Its incorporation of different factors affecting organisations, individual ability, and personalities makes it an ideal management strategy. This is also the reason it is still in use almost a century after it was formulated. Weber approached the challenge of organisational development and management with an open mind and a futuristic mentality, giving his theory the longevity and adaptability it has become renowned for. Discussion Practicing managers must have an understanding of academic approaches to work and in organisations. In fact, they must have a good (not some) grasp of academic perspectives in order to be effective in their duties. Over the years, there has been renewed focus on the need for managers to combine theoretical and practical knowledge in their strategies (Mansouri & De Bberi, 2014:29). It has also become apparent that the most successful managers are those who can strike a good balance between theory and practice. Interestingly, theoretical aspects do not always apply in practical situations and vice-versa. However, academic approaches are the foundation for successful practice. For example, human resource managers in any context may want to motivate workers but will not succeed in doing so if they do not understand academic backgrounds of motivation (Chakrabortty, 2010:1). They should have a good grasp of motivational theories and how to apply them before they replicate this knowledge in their firms. Lack of theoretical knowledge makes managers dependent on instinct, intuition, and experience as management yardsticks. Although these may be ultimately effective, they are very costly and intensive. A manager who relies in instinct and learning from experience is unlikely to be tolerated by most organisations, and will not even receive financial support if she cannot demonstrate theoretical ability. Academic approaches also give managers the power to articulate their visions and goals clearly; this is a vital aspect of management (Anter & Tribe, 2014:37). Overreliance on practical knowledge denies managers the opportunity to communicate their objectives to their staff in explicit terms so that they can work towards attaining them. Sometimes, despite all the experience and practical knowledge a manager may possess, employees need to be assured and confided in using academic approaches. For example, managing different personalities requires just as much theoretical foundation as practical grounding. For example, managers should stay abreast of developments in their areas of specialisation to avoid being rendered irrelevant (Chakrabortty, 2010:1). Weblogs and diaries help us to understand the world of work in numerous ways. Some weblogs and diaries are often written from an organisational perspective, hence giving valuable insight into the workings of other companies. For example, a CEO of a Fortune 500 company may publish a weblog or diary on the challenges of modern management and how his organisation is dealing with them (Petrakis, 2014:36). Once it is published on an online portal, millions of readers can read and gain an understanding of the latest approaches used to overcome management challenges. Some of the readers include managers in various capacities, employees, and partners in different ventures. It can, therefore, be said that weblogs and diaries promote knowledge sharing in diverse contexts but especially regarding employment. A manager in a mid-sized company who aspires to steer his firm to the direction of a multinational, and who has admiration for the management styles and work environment at Microsoft or Apple, can obtain valuable information from weblogs on the two companies. This information can then be used to introduce positive changes in a small company that is struggling to navigate the challenges of the modern work setting (Rees & Smith, 2014:19). Weblogs and diaries used to support the views postulated in traditional literature, but it is becoming increasingly clear that they are beginning to contradict the perspectives put forward by traditional literature. This is primarily influenced by the growing diversity of the workplace, globalisation, and technological advancement (Witzel & Warner, 2013:74). Traditional management principles are now less influential in modern management. In fact, they are being discarded in favour of contemporary approaches that complement current management contexts. The shift has been necessitated by a need to adapt yet remain competitive. It is also important to recognise that organisational environments have changed significantly over the years, and managers have been forced to adapt or lose out to more dynamic rivals (Robbins, Coulter, Bergman, & Stagg, 2014:34). The major reasons behind the trends identified in the article are flexibility, innovation, globalisation, and intense competition. These factors have forced managers to adjust their approaches to conform to new organisational environments. In retrospect, most managers have not had a choice in this regard. These factors are the bedrock of success and survival in modern business; any manager who opts to ignore them cannot achieve anything in his capacity (Urban, 2014:67). This is not to say that all trends associated with these concepts must be adopted. Logic dictates that managers decide which aspects of those factors are relevant to their organisations and then implement them. In cases where some trends have become standard industry practices, managers have no choice but to incorporate them in their strategies. It is also worth noting that this is an inevitable direction with respect to how work is organised and managed (Mommsen & Osterhammel, 2013:27). As evidenced in historical developments, management is always progressing. It is difficult to find trends that borrow ideas from practices that had already been used and phased out. Shifts are, more often than not, inevitable and irreversible. This is caused by the change factor, whose effects cannot be escaped regardless of the efforts managers or organisations make to maintain preferred status quos (Wells, 2014:53). The perspective of organisational culture adopted by Willmott is one of flexibility, vision, and engagement. Other perspectives include dynamism, employee development, and resource management. These perspectives are valid because they are applicable in the current business and organisational environment (Miles, 2014:43). They have been used previously and are likely to continue being employed in ensuring sustainable organisational management. Willmott argues that the context in which the corporate culturalist phenomena developed is based on historical milestones in organisational management, globalisation, and changing demands of modern management (Willmott, 1993:531). The corporate culturalist phenomenon is heavily influenced by the management theory. In fact, it is a direct natural result of the management theory. It deviates from this concept to a minimal extent, often by incorporating recent findings of current literature and developments in management. Willmott draws parallels between corporate culturalism’s tendency to wrest control by managing the perception of upholding the uniqueness and personality of each worker, and its ability to facilitate the repudiation of concepts like autonomy while simultaneously controlling its reality (Willmott, 1993:526). This is a common feature in Orwell’s 1984. There is also a parallel between the Party devotion in 1984 and the devotion common in strong corporate cultures (Willmott, 1993:526). These parallels are valid because they have been exhibited in past and current organisations that practice corporate culturalism. Willmott’s moral opposition to corporate culturalism is based on the notion that human beings need to have the freedom to express themselves in any setting, be it work, school, or social activities. It is a moral freedom that any individual should enjoy to the greatest possible extent. Willmott’s presents a number of arguments to support this claim (Willmott, 1993:533). However, the most important one is that corporate culturalism is an attempt to restrict employees to predetermined conditions and expectations that may go against their beliefs and principles. I do not find Willmott’s arguments and perspectives to be far-fetched. They are presented from a realistic and flexible point of view that considers many other possibilities. The employees at Renault Technocentre, Foxconn, and Orange France are subjective, conformist, and mismanaged. The three companies do not understand how to manage their employees so that they optimise their potential. The working conditions are not favourable and the decision makers at the three companies do not seem to care about the impacts this has on employees (Merz, 2013:17). Employees are not motivated due to unsatisfactory wages and inflexible working hours that have persisted for a long time. As a result, employees are facing enormous pressure away from work (home, family, relationships, etc.), leading to an increase in the number of suicides (Wieland, 2014:25). An inability to find fulfilment at work and in their personal lives is leading them to think that the only solution to the problems is suicide. I would describe the organisations as bureaucratic because they demonstrate a limited capacity to change and are bogged down by numerous lines of communication, protocols, and authority. Employees are frustrated by a constant need to wait for approvals from management before the simplest decisions can be made; these are the hallmarks of bureaucracy (Moore, 2010:1). The similarities between the three situations are that all three firms are bureaucratic in nature and exhibit a limited capacity to motivate their employees. All three organisations are also prone to either ignoring their employees’ plights or adopting ineffective measures of addressing them. The differences between the organisations are that they demonstrate varying degrees of flexibility and sensitivity to employee issues. Renault Technocentre seems to be the most committed to addressing employee problems, followed by Orange France and Foxconn. In addition, all the organisations have different resource capacities that can support a shift to more dynamic methods. Once again, Renault Technocentre appears to have the largest abundance of financial and human resources to aid any progressive changes (Stern, 2014:1). It is followed by Foxconn and then Orange France. Objective rationality, subjective rationality, instrumental rationality, substantial rationality, and Max Weber’s management theory are all visible in the three organisational contexts. Objective rationality is most visible at Renault Technocentre while substantial rationality seems to be the norm at Foxconn. Orange France, on the other hand, appears to lean towards instrumental rationality. However, all three companies exhibit variations of Max Weber’s bureaucratic management theory. The unitarist and pluralist perspectives are the most common views in the three cases (Moore, 2010:1). The managers in the three organisations are more concerned about the success of their companies but do not want to acknowledge the importance of its individual components. In this regard, the organisations can be said to be weaker than the sum of their parts. The statement made by Renault Technocentre, in which it appears to absolve itself from blame and, worse still, blames employees for their predicaments, shows that the company is too bureaucratic and poorly managed to address its weaknesses (Stern, 2014:1). By claiming that the suicides are not associated, in any way, to the activities and working conditions in the Technocentre or the organisation overall, the company is saying that it is not concerned about its employees’ problems and their implications on its image and success. This shows that Renault’s management is both insensitive and incompetent. It is also a violation of trade union principles that require organisations to manage the welfares of their employees. Assuming the position of a U.S Consultancy firm who advised Renault, I would recommend that the company overhaul its human resource division and develop a new company code that specifically and adequately addresses the issues affecting its employees (health, motivation, etc.). I would also recommend that the company observe employee management strategies adopted by other successful firms to learn how to handle its employees from both local and global perspectives. Renault’s conduct in the aftermath of the suicides is an insult to the families of the deceased workers (Willsher, 2007:1). As a large and reputable company, the firm has a direct and indirect responsibility to take care of its employees and their families to the best of their capacity and knowledge. However, its behaviour suggests that the deceased workers may not even have been on their payrolls at one point. The families of those employees will feel aggrieved by the loss of their loved ones and even more hurt by Renault’s behaviour. All three companies are directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths. If they had provided better working conditions and used better employee management practices, then their workers would have felt motivated and valued enough to continue working for them (Willsher, 2007:1). However, they treated them poorly and thus contributed to their deaths. The issue here is not just a particularly French/Chinese issue; there more significant issues here. Such conduct is prevalent in other countries and companies that put profitability above employee development and welfare. References Anter, A. & Tribe, K. (2014) Max Webers theory of the modern state: origins, structure and significance, London, Palgrave Macmillan. Chakrabortty, A. (2010, August 31) Why our jobs are getting worse, Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/31/why-our-jobs-getting-worse Mansouri, F. & De Bberi, B. (2014) Global perspectives on the politics of multiculturalism in the 21st century: A case study analysis, London, Routledge. Merz, F. (2013) Max Webers Theory of Bureaucracy and its Negative Consequences (Revised ed.), München, GRIN Verlag GmbH. Miles, J. (Ed.). (2014) New directions in management and organisation theory, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Mommsen, W. & Osterhammel, J. (2013) Max Weber and his contemporaries, Hoboken, Routledge. Moore, M. (2010, May 27) Inside Foxconns suicide factory, Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/7773011/A-look-inside-the-Foxconn-suicide-factory.html Petrakis, P. (2014) Culture, growth and economic policy (Revised ed.), New York, Springer Science & Business Media. Rees, G. & Smith, P. (2014) Strategic human resource management: an international perspective, Ohio, SAGE. Robbins, S., Coulter, M., Bergman, R. & Stagg, I. (2014) Management (10th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Australia. Stern, S. (2014, March 21) The Orange France suicide cases shine a light on corporate morality, Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/21/orange-france-suicide-corporate-morality Urban, G. (Ed.). (2014) Corporations and citizenship, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. Wells, G. (Ed.). (2014) Sustainable business: theory and practice of business under sustainability principles, London, Edward Elgar Publishing. Wieland, J. (2014) Governance ethics: global value creation, economic organisation and normativity (Aufl. 2014 ed.), Cheltenham, Springer International Publishing. Willmott, H. (1993) Strength Is Ignorance; Slavery Is Freedom: Managing Culture In Modern Organisations, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 30, no. 4, 515-552. Willsher, K. (2007, March 10) Heading for a breakdown, Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/money/2007/mar/10/careers.workplacestress Witzel, M. & Warner, M. (2013) The Oxford handbook of management theorists (Illustrated ed.), Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read More