II. Theories and Principles of Organization:
In this chapter we need to understand the following topics for understanding the scenario of Public Administration Subject more effectively.
i. Scientific Management;
ii. Bureaucratic Model;
iii. Classical theory;
iv. Human Relation Theory;
v. Behavioral Approach;
vi. Systems Approach;
vii. Principles of hierarchy,
viii. Unity of Command,
ix. Span of Control,
x. Authority and Responsibility,
xi. Co-ordination,
xii. Delegation,
xiii. Centralization and Decentralization,
xiv. Supervision, Line and Staff.
Now let us elaborate all the aforesaid points to understand them better.
i) SCIENTIFIC MANAGEMENT:
Mr. Fredrick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) is called the father of scientific Management. Scientific management was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management. Its development began with Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s within the manufacturing industries. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s; by the 1920s, it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas. Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was obsolete by the 1930s, most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today. These include analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or merely to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill sets; the transformation of craft production into mass production; and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools, processes, and documentation.
As a German academic, Weber was primarily interested in the reasons behind the employees’ actions and in why people who work in an organization accept the authority of their superiors and comply with the rules of the organization.
Legitimate Types of Authority by Max Weber
Weber made a distinction between authority and power. According to Weber power educes obedience through force or the threat of force which induces individuals to adhere to regulations. In contrast, legitimate authority entails that individuals acquiesce that authority is exercised upon them by their superiors. Weber goes on to identify three types of legitimate authority:
Traditional authority – Traditional authority is readily accepted and unquestioned by individuals since it emanates from deeply set customs and tradition. Traditional authority is found in tribes and monarchies.
Charismatic authority – Charismatic authority is gained by those individuals who have gained the respect and trust of their followers. This type of authority is exercised by a charismatic leader in small and large groups alike.
Rational-legal authority – Rational-legal authority stems from the setup of an organization and the position held by the person in authority. Rational-legal authority is exercised within the stipulated rules and procedures of an organization.
The Key Characteristics of a Bureaucracy
Weber coined this last type of authority with the name of a bureaucracy. The term bureaucracy in terms of an organization and management functions refers to the following six characteristics:
Management by rules. A bureaucracy follows a consistent set of rules that control the functions of the organization. Management controls the lower levels of the organization's hierarchy by applying established rules in a consistent and predictable manner.
May also Read
Henry Fayol Principles of Management
Frederick W Taylor's Scientific Management Theory
Adolf Hitler and Charismatic Leadership
Division of labor. Authority and responsibility are clearly defined and officially sanctioned. Job descriptions are specified with responsibilities and line of authority. All employees have thus clearly defined rules in a system of authority and subordination.
Formal hierarchical structure. An organization is organized into a hierarchy of authority and follows a clear chain of command. The hierarchical structure effectively delineates the lines of authority and the subordination of the lower levels to the upper levels of the hierarchical structure.
Personnel hired on grounds of technical competence. Appointment to a position within the organization is made on the grounds of technical competence. Work is assigned based on the experience and competence of the individual.
Managers are salaried officials. A manager is a salaried official and does own the administered unit. All elements of a bureaucracy are defined with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and are managed by trained and experienced specialists.
Written documents. All decisions, rules and actions taken by the organization are formulated and recorded in writing. Written documents ensure that there is continuity of the organization’s policies and procedures.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Weber’s Bureaucracy
Weber’s bureaucracy is based on logic and rationality which are supported by trained and qualified specialists. The element of a bureaucracy offers a stable and hierarchical model for an organization.
Nevertheless, Weber’s bureaucracy does have its limitations since it is based on the roles and responsibilities of the individuals rather than on the tasks performed by the organization. Its rigidity implies a lack of flexibility to respond to the demands of change in the business environment
There are three well-established theories of classical management:
Fayol: Fayol proposed that any industrial undertaking had six functions:
Traditional process of learning is either through obsevation and experiment. Nature or environment is considered uniform and when we observe certain phenomenon or events uniformly leading to the same result or results, we conclude a cause and effect relationship between the two. This is learning by observation or in other words by experience.
Earlier thinkers on management followed this approach in developing theories of management. Learning principally is through emphirical process and through analysis of the data collected through observation. Draw the principles of managment by looking at and anyalysing the jobs that all managers commonly do. This approach served as a starting point for pioneers on management science to verify the validity and improve the applicability of the principles and practices of management. Analysis of observd data is what constitute a case study. The observational method of case study helps arriving at logical conclusions about past experience and to test the same as standards for future events.
The German sociolists, Max Weber followed the classical approach and developed his theory of Bureaucracy, which portrays the structure anddesign of organisation charqacterised by a hierarchy of authority, formalised rules and regulations that serve to guide the coordinated functioning of an organization.
Max Weber
1. Management of an organization is considered as a chain of inter-related functions. The study of the scope and features of these functions, the sequence through which these are performed and their inter-relationship leads one to draw principles of management suitable for universal application
2. Learning principles of management is done through the past experiences of actual practicing managers
3. As business environment consists of uniform cycles exhibiting an underlying unity of realities, functions and principles of management derived through process of empirical reasoning are suitable for universal application
4. Emerging new managers through formal education and case study can develop skill and competency in management concepts and practices
5. The clasasical approach also recognised the importance of economic efficiency and formal organizational structure as guiding pillars of management effectigveness.
6. Business activity is based on economic benefit. Organizations should therefore control economic incentives.
Neoclassical theory of management
There are 3 neoclassical theories:
iv) Human Relations theory :
Explains the modern advancement of Human Relations Management theory which takes into account human factors like the employer-employee relationship. Human relations theory is largely seen to have been born as a result of the Hawthorne experiments which Elton Mayo conducted at the Western Electrical Company.
The important strand in the development of modern management was the increase in attention to the human factors, which has become known as the 'human relations school of management.’ The core aspect of Human Relations Theory is that, when workers were being observed and included in the research, they felt more important and valued by the company. As a result, their productivity levels went up significantly. This represented a significant departure from many of the classical theories, particularly Fordism, as it went against the notion that management needed to control workers, and remove their autonomy at every step. Instead, it showed that by engaging with workers and considering their requirements and needs, company’s could benefit from increased productivity.
v) Behavioral APPROACH :
The behavioral management theory is often called the human relations movement because it addresses the human dimension of work. Behavioral theorists believed that a better understanding of human behavior at work, such as motivation, conflict, expectations, and group dynamics, improved productivity.
The theorists who contributed to this school viewed employees as individuals, resources, and assets to be developed and worked with — not as machines, as in the past. Several individuals and experiments contributed to this theory.
vi) Social systems theory.:
Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory is an option for the theoretical foundation of Human Resource Management (HRM). After clarifying the advantages of using a grand (social) theory as the basic theoretical perspective, the roots of this social systems theory - the deterministic view of systems as machines, the open systems approach and non-linear systems theory - are addressed. Based on the view of social systems as autopoietically closed systems, five major contributions to a theoretical foundation of HRM are identified:
Elton Mayo's contributions came as part of the Hawthorne studies, a series of experiments that rigorously applied classical management theory only to reveal its shortcomings. The Hawthorne experiments consisted of two studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago from 1924 to 1932. The first study was conducted by a group of engineers seeking to determine the relationship of lighting levels to worker productivity. Surprisingly enough, they discovered that worker productivity increased as the lighting levels decreased — that is, until the employees were unable to see what they were doing, after which performance naturally declined.
A few years later, a second group of experiments began. Harvard researchers Mayo and F. J. Roethlisberger supervised a group of five women in a bank wiring room. They gave the women special privileges, such as the right to leave their workstations without permission, take rest periods, enjoy free lunches, and have variations in pay levels and workdays. This experiment also resulted in significantly increased rates of productivity.
In this case, Mayo and Roethlisberger concluded that the increase in productivity resulted from the supervisory arrangement rather than the changes in lighting or other associated worker benefits. Because the experimenters became the primary supervisors of the employees, the intense interest they displayed for the workers was the basis for the increased motivation and resulting productivity. Essentially, the experimenters became a part of the study and influenced its outcome. This is the origin of the term Hawthorne effect, which describes the special attention researchers give to a study's subjects and the impact that attention has on the study's findings.
Vi) THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY
The Hierarchy theory is a dialect of general systems theory. It has emerged as part of a movement toward a general science of complexity. Rooted in the work of economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean Piaget, hierarchy theory focuses upon levels of organization and issues of scale. There is significant emphasis upon the observer in the system.
Hierarchies occur in social systems, biological structures, and in the biological taxonomies. Since scholars and laypersons use hierarchy and hierarchical concepts commonly, it would seem reasonable to have a theory of hierarchies. Hierarchy theory uses a relatively small set of principles to keep track of the complex structure and a behavior of systems with multiple levels. A set of definitions and principles follows immediately:
Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships downwards.
Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin parasites.
Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a population.
The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate isolated classes.
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being made of - lower levels.
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
Duality in hierarchies: the dualism in hierarchies appears to come from a set of complementarities that line up with: observer-observed, process-structure, rate-dependent versus rate-independent, and part-whole. Arthur Koestler in his "Ghost in The Machine" referred to the notion of holon, which means an entity in a hierarchy that is at once a whole and at the same time a part. Thus a holon at once operates as a quasi-autonomous whole that integrates its parts, while working to integrate itself into an upper level purpose or role. The lower level answers the question "How?" and the upper level answers the question, "So what?"
Constraint versus possibilities: when one looks at a system there are two separate reasons behind what one sees. First, it is not possible to see something if the parts of the system cannot do what is required of them to achieve the arrangement in the whole. These are the limits of physical possibility. The limits of possibility come from lower levels in the hierarchy. The second entirely separate reason for what one sees is to do with what is allowed by the upper level constraints. An example here would be that mammals have five digits. There is no physical reason for mammals having five digits on their hands and feet, because it comes not from physical limits, but from the constraints of having a mammal heritage. Any number of the digits is possible within the physical limits, but in mammals only five digits are allowed by the biological constraints. Constraints come from above, while the limits as to what is possible come from below. The concept of hierarchy becomes confused unless one makes the distinction between limits from below and limits from above. The distinction between mechanisms below and purposes above turn on the issue of constraint versus possibility. Forget the distinction, and biology becomes pointlessly confused, impossibly complicated chemistry, while chemistry becomes unwieldy physics.
Complexity and self-simplification: Howard Pattee has identified that as a system becomes more elaborately hierarchical its behavior becomes simple. The reason is that, with the emergence of intermediate levels, the lowest level entities become constrained to be far from equilibrium. As a result, the lowest level entities lose degrees of freedom and are held against the upper level constraint to give constant behavior. Deep hierarchical structure indicates elaborate organization, and deep hierarchies are often considered as complex systems by virtue of hierarchical depth.
Complexity versus complicatedness: a hierarchical structure with a large number of lowest level entities, but with simple organization, offers a low flat hierarchy that is complicated rather than complex. The behavior of structurally complicated systems is behaviorally elaborate and so complicated, whereas the behavior of deep hierarchically complex systems is simple.
Hierarchy theory is as much as anything a theory of observation. It has been significantly operationalized in ecology, but has been applied relatively infrequently outside that science. There is a negative reaction to hierarchy theory in the social sciences, by virtue of implications of rigid autocratic systems or authority. When applied in a more general fashion, even liberal and non-authoritarian systems can be described effectively in hierarchical terms. There is a politically correct set of labels that avoid the word hierarchy, but they unnecessarily introduce jargon into a field that has enough special vocabulary as it is.
A SHORT ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HIERARCHY THEORY.
This bibliography is in chronological order, so that the reader can identify the early classics as opposed to the later refinements. If you must choose just one book to read, turn to the last reference in this bibliography, Ahl and Allen, 1996. Simon, H.. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American philosophical society 106: 467-82. This is the foundation paper of hierarchy theory originating from an economist. It was a re-published in "Sciences of the Artificial" by Simon. It introduces the idea of near-decomposability. If systems were completely decomposable, then there would be no emergent whole, because the parts would exist only separately. The "near" in near-decomposable allows the upper level to emerge from the fact that the parts anre not completely separate.
Koestler, Arthur. 1967. The ghost in the machine. Macmillan, New York. This is a long hard look at human social structure in hierarchical terms. The notion of holon first occurs in this work. This is a classic work, but is easily accessible to the lay public.
Whyte, L.. L.., A. G. Wilson and D. Wilson (eds.). 1969. Hierarchical structures. American Elsevier, New York. This is a classic collection of early scholarly works by some of the founders of hierarchical thinking.
Pattee, H.. H. (ed.) 1973. Hierarchy theory: the challenge or complex systems. Braziller, New York. This edited volume has some classic articles by Pattee, Simon and others.
Allen, T. F. H. and T. B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University Chicago Press. This book has a significant ecological component but is much more generally about hierarchical structure. It is abstract and a somewhat technical treatment but has been the foundation work for the application of hierarchy theory in ecology and complex systems theory at large.
Salthe, S. 1985. Evolving Hierarchical Systems: their structure and representation. Columbia University Press, New York. This book has a strong structural bias, in contrast to the process oriented approach of Allen and the other ecologists in this bibliography. Salthe introduces the notion of the Triadic, where there is a focus on 1) the system as both a whole above the levels below and 2) a part belonging to another level above, 3) not forgetting the level of the structure itself in between. While much biological hierarchy theory takes an anti-realist point view, or is at least reality-agnostic, wherein the ultimate reality of hierarchical arrangement is left moot, Salthe's version of hierarchy theory is concerned with the ultimate reality of structure. The anti-realist view of structure is that it is imposed by the observer, and may or may not correspond to any ultimate reality. If structure does correspond to ultimate, external reality, we could never know that to be so. Salthe's logic is consistent but always takes a structural and ontological position.
O'Neill, R. V., D. DeAngelis, J. Waide and T. F. H. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press. This is a distinctly ecological application of hierarchy theory, making the critical distinction between process functional ecosystem approaches as opposed to population and community relationships. It is an application of hierarchy theory to ecosystem analysis.
Allen T. F. H. and T. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a unified ecology. Columbia University Press. This book turns on hierarchy theory, but is principally a book about ecology. It goes beyond the O'Neill et al book, in that it makes the distinction between many types of ecology (landscape, ecosystem, community, organism, population, and biomes) on the one hand, and scale of ecology on the other hand. It ends with practical applications of hierarchy theory and ecological management.
Ahl, V. and T. F. H. Allen. 1996. Hierarchy theory, a vision, vocabulary and epistemology. Columbia University Press. This slim a volume is an interdisciplinary account of a hierarchy theory, and represents the shallow end of the pool. It is the primer version of Allen and Starr 1982. It is full of graphical images to ease the reader into a hierarchical perspective. It makes the distinction between levels of organization and levels of observation. It takes a moderate anti-realist point of view, wherein there may be an external reality, but it is not relevant to the discourse. We only have access to experience, which must of necessity involve observer values and subjectivity. There are examples from a wide discussion of many disciplines. Included are examples from psychology, ecology, the law, political systems and philosophy. It makes reference to the global and technological problems facing humanity, and offers hierarchy theory as one tool in the struggle. The summary of hierarchy theory in the opening paragraphs above comes from this book.
ii) BUREAUCRATIC MODEL : In the social sciences, a bureaucracy is a large organization characterized by hierarchy, fixed rules, impersonal relationships, rigid adherence to procedures, and a highly specialized division of labor.
Max Weber (1864-1920) was a German academic and sociologist who provided another approach in the development of classical management theory.
Legitimate Types of Authority by Max Weber
Weber made a distinction between authority and power. According to Weber power educes obedience through force or the threat of force which induces individuals to adhere to regulations. In contrast, legitimate authority entails that individuals acquiesce that authority is exercised upon them by their superiors. Weber goes on to identify three types of legitimate authority:Traditional authority – Traditional authority is readily accepted and unquestioned by individuals since it emanates from deeply set customs and tradition. Traditional authority is found in tribes and monarchies.
Charismatic authority – Charismatic authority is gained by those individuals who have gained the respect and trust of their followers. This type of authority is exercised by a charismatic leader in small and large groups alike.
Rational-legal authority – Rational-legal authority stems from the setup of an organization and the position held by the person in authority. Rational-legal authority is exercised within the stipulated rules and procedures of an organization.
The Key Characteristics of a Bureaucracy
Weber coined this last type of authority with the name of a bureaucracy. The term bureaucracy in terms of an organization and management functions refers to the following six characteristics:Management by rules. A bureaucracy follows a consistent set of rules that control the functions of the organization. Management controls the lower levels of the organization's hierarchy by applying established rules in a consistent and predictable manner.
May also Read
Henry Fayol Principles of Management
Frederick W Taylor's Scientific Management Theory
Adolf Hitler and Charismatic Leadershi
Division of labor. Authority and responsibility are clearly defined and officially sanctioned. Job descriptions are specified with responsibilities and line of authority. All employees have thus clearly defined rules in a system of authority and subordination.
Formal hierarchical structure. An organization is organized into a hierarchy of authority and follows a clear chain of command. The hierarchical structure effectively delineates the lines of authority and the subordination of the lower levels to the upper levels of the hierarchical structure.
Personnel hired on grounds of technical competence. Appointment to a position within the organization is made on the grounds of technical competence. Work is assigned based on the experience and competence of the individual.
Managers are salaried officials. A manager is a salaried official and does own the administered unit. All elements of a bureaucracy are defined with clearly defined roles and responsibilities and are managed by trained and experienced specialists.
Written documents. All decisions, rules and actions taken by the organization are formulated and recorded in writing. Written documents ensure that there is continuity of the organization’s policies and procedures.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Weber’s Bureaucracy
Weber’s bureaucracy is based on logic and rationality which are supported by trained and qualified specialists. The element of a bureaucracy offers a stable and hierarchical model for an organization.Nevertheless, Weber’s bureaucracy does have its limitations since it is based on the roles and responsibilities of the individuals rather than on the tasks performed by the organization. Its rigidity implies a lack of flexibility to respond to the demands of change in the business environment
iii) CLASSICAL THEORIES OF MANAGEMENT:
Classical management theory
There are three well-established theories of classical management:
1. Taylor,s Theory of Scientific Management,
2. Fayol’s Administrative Theory,
3. Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy
These theories, developed historical sequences.
These theories recognize the role that management plays in an organization. The importance of the function of management was first recognized by French industrialist Henri Fayol in the early 1900s.
These theories recognize the role that management plays in an organization. The importance of the function of management was first recognized by French industrialist Henri Fayol in the early 1900s.
Taylor,s Theory of Scientific Management (described above)
Fayol: Fayol proposed that any industrial undertaking had six functions:
· technical;
· commercial;
· financial;
· security;
· accounting; and
· managerial.
Of these, he believed the managerial function, ‘to forecast and plan, to organize, to command, to coordinate, and control’, to be quite distinct from the other five. Fayol also identified general principles of management: division of work; authority and responsibility; discipline; unity of command; unity of direction; subordination of individual interest to general interest; remuneration of personnel; centralization; scalar chain of authority; order; equity; stability of tenure of personnel; initiative; and esprit de corps. Fayol's views on management remained popular throughout a large part of the 20th century.
Evolution of Classical Approach to Management
Evolution of Classical Approach to Management
Traditional process of learning is either through obsevation and experiment. Nature or environment is considered uniform and when we observe certain phenomenon or events uniformly leading to the same result or results, we conclude a cause and effect relationship between the two. This is learning by observation or in other words by experience.
Earlier thinkers on management followed this approach in developing theories of management. Learning principally is through emphirical process and through analysis of the data collected through observation. Draw the principles of managment by looking at and anyalysing the jobs that all managers commonly do. This approach served as a starting point for pioneers on management science to verify the validity and improve the applicability of the principles and practices of management. Analysis of observd data is what constitute a case study. The observational method of case study helps arriving at logical conclusions about past experience and to test the same as standards for future events.
The German sociolists, Max Weber followed the classical approach and developed his theory of Bureaucracy, which portrays the structure anddesign of organisation charqacterised by a hierarchy of authority, formalised rules and regulations that serve to guide the coordinated functioning of an organization.
Max Weber
1. Management of an organization is considered as a chain of inter-related functions. The study of the scope and features of these functions, the sequence through which these are performed and their inter-relationship leads one to draw principles of management suitable for universal application
2. Learning principles of management is done through the past experiences of actual practicing managers
3. As business environment consists of uniform cycles exhibiting an underlying unity of realities, functions and principles of management derived through process of empirical reasoning are suitable for universal application
4. Emerging new managers through formal education and case study can develop skill and competency in management concepts and practices
5. The clasasical approach also recognised the importance of economic efficiency and formal organizational structure as guiding pillars of management effectigveness.
6. Business activity is based on economic benefit. Organizations should therefore control economic incentives.
Neoclassical theory of management
There are 3 neoclassical theories:
iv) Human Relations theory :
Explains the modern advancement of Human Relations Management theory which takes into account human factors like the employer-employee relationship. Human relations theory is largely seen to have been born as a result of the Hawthorne experiments which Elton Mayo conducted at the Western Electrical Company.
The important strand in the development of modern management was the increase in attention to the human factors, which has become known as the 'human relations school of management.’ The core aspect of Human Relations Theory is that, when workers were being observed and included in the research, they felt more important and valued by the company. As a result, their productivity levels went up significantly. This represented a significant departure from many of the classical theories, particularly Fordism, as it went against the notion that management needed to control workers, and remove their autonomy at every step. Instead, it showed that by engaging with workers and considering their requirements and needs, company’s could benefit from increased productivity.
v) Behavioral APPROACH :
The behavioral management theory is often called the human relations movement because it addresses the human dimension of work. Behavioral theorists believed that a better understanding of human behavior at work, such as motivation, conflict, expectations, and group dynamics, improved productivity.
The theorists who contributed to this school viewed employees as individuals, resources, and assets to be developed and worked with — not as machines, as in the past. Several individuals and experiments contributed to this theory.
vi) Social systems theory.:
Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory is an option for the theoretical foundation of Human Resource Management (HRM). After clarifying the advantages of using a grand (social) theory as the basic theoretical perspective, the roots of this social systems theory - the deterministic view of systems as machines, the open systems approach and non-linear systems theory - are addressed. Based on the view of social systems as autopoietically closed systems, five major contributions to a theoretical foundation of HRM are identified:
(1) The conceptualisation of organising and managing human resources as social processes, thus overcoming an individualistic angle;
(2) The new importance of individuals as essential element in the system's environment;
(3) The abstention form far reaching or highly unrealistic assumptions about the 'nature' of human beings;
(4) The interaction between various levels and units of analysis built into the theory which is essential for comprehensive and in-depth analyses of HR phenomena and
(5) The openness for additional theories for which social systems theory provides the overall framework.
George Elton Mayo was in charge of certain experiments on human behavior carried out at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric company in Chicago between 1924 and 1927. His research findings have contributed to organizational development in terms of human relations and motivation theory.
George Elton Mayo was in charge of certain experiments on human behavior carried out at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric company in Chicago between 1924 and 1927. His research findings have contributed to organizational development in terms of human relations and motivation theory.
Elton Mayo's contributions came as part of the Hawthorne studies, a series of experiments that rigorously applied classical management theory only to reveal its shortcomings. The Hawthorne experiments consisted of two studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago from 1924 to 1932. The first study was conducted by a group of engineers seeking to determine the relationship of lighting levels to worker productivity. Surprisingly enough, they discovered that worker productivity increased as the lighting levels decreased — that is, until the employees were unable to see what they were doing, after which performance naturally declined.
A few years later, a second group of experiments began. Harvard researchers Mayo and F. J. Roethlisberger supervised a group of five women in a bank wiring room. They gave the women special privileges, such as the right to leave their workstations without permission, take rest periods, enjoy free lunches, and have variations in pay levels and workdays. This experiment also resulted in significantly increased rates of productivity.
In this case, Mayo and Roethlisberger concluded that the increase in productivity resulted from the supervisory arrangement rather than the changes in lighting or other associated worker benefits. Because the experimenters became the primary supervisors of the employees, the intense interest they displayed for the workers was the basis for the increased motivation and resulting productivity. Essentially, the experimenters became a part of the study and influenced its outcome. This is the origin of the term Hawthorne effect, which describes the special attention researchers give to a study's subjects and the impact that attention has on the study's findings.
Vi) THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY THEORY
The Hierarchy theory is a dialect of general systems theory. It has emerged as part of a movement toward a general science of complexity. Rooted in the work of economist, Herbert Simon, chemist, Ilya Prigogine, and psychologist, Jean Piaget, hierarchy theory focuses upon levels of organization and issues of scale. There is significant emphasis upon the observer in the system.
Hierarchies occur in social systems, biological structures, and in the biological taxonomies. Since scholars and laypersons use hierarchy and hierarchical concepts commonly, it would seem reasonable to have a theory of hierarchies. Hierarchy theory uses a relatively small set of principles to keep track of the complex structure and a behavior of systems with multiple levels. A set of definitions and principles follows immediately:
Hierarchy: in mathematical terms, it is a partially ordered set. In less austere terms, a hierarchy is a collection of parts with ordered asymmetric relationships inside a whole. That is to say, upper levels are above lower levels, and the relationship upwards is asymmetric with the relationships downwards.
Level of organization: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of set of definitions that lock the level in question to those above and below. For example, a biological population level is an aggregate of entities from the organism level of organization, but it is only so by definition. There is no particular scale involved in the population level of organization, in that some organisms are larger than some populations, as in the case of skin parasites.
Level of observation: this type of level fits into its hierarchy by virtue of relative scaling considerations. For example, the host of a skin parasite represents the context for the population of parasites; it is a landscape, even though the host may be seen as belonging to a level of organization, organism, that is lower than the collection of parasites, a population.
The criterion for observation: when a system is observed, there are two separate considerations. One is the spatiotemporal scale at which the observations are made. The other is the criterion for observation, which defines the system in the foreground away from all the rest in the background. The criterion for observation uses the types of parts and their relationships to each other to characterize the system in the foreground. If criteria for observation are linked together in an asymmetric fashion, then the criteria lead to levels of organization. Otherwise, criteria for observation merely generate isolated classes.
The ordering of levels: there are several criteria whereby other levels reside above lower levels. These criteria often run in parallel, but sometimes only one or a few of them apply. Upper levels are above lower levels by virtue of: 1) being the context of, 2) offering constraint to, 3) behaving more slowly at a lower frequency than, 4) being populated by entities with greater integrity and higher bond strength than, and 5), containing and being made of - lower levels.
Nested and non-nested hierarchies: nested hierarchies involve levels which consist of, and contain, lower levels. Non-nested hierarchies are more general in that the requirement of containment of lower levels is relaxed. For example, an army consists of a collection of soldiers and is made up of them. Thus an army is a nested hierarchy. On the other hand, the general at the top of a military command does not consist of his soldiers and so the military command is a non-nested hierarchy with regard to the soldiers in the army. Pecking orders and a food chains are also non-nested hierarchies.
Duality in hierarchies: the dualism in hierarchies appears to come from a set of complementarities that line up with: observer-observed, process-structure, rate-dependent versus rate-independent, and part-whole. Arthur Koestler in his "Ghost in The Machine" referred to the notion of holon, which means an entity in a hierarchy that is at once a whole and at the same time a part. Thus a holon at once operates as a quasi-autonomous whole that integrates its parts, while working to integrate itself into an upper level purpose or role. The lower level answers the question "How?" and the upper level answers the question, "So what?"
Constraint versus possibilities: when one looks at a system there are two separate reasons behind what one sees. First, it is not possible to see something if the parts of the system cannot do what is required of them to achieve the arrangement in the whole. These are the limits of physical possibility. The limits of possibility come from lower levels in the hierarchy. The second entirely separate reason for what one sees is to do with what is allowed by the upper level constraints. An example here would be that mammals have five digits. There is no physical reason for mammals having five digits on their hands and feet, because it comes not from physical limits, but from the constraints of having a mammal heritage. Any number of the digits is possible within the physical limits, but in mammals only five digits are allowed by the biological constraints. Constraints come from above, while the limits as to what is possible come from below. The concept of hierarchy becomes confused unless one makes the distinction between limits from below and limits from above. The distinction between mechanisms below and purposes above turn on the issue of constraint versus possibility. Forget the distinction, and biology becomes pointlessly confused, impossibly complicated chemistry, while chemistry becomes unwieldy physics.
Complexity and self-simplification: Howard Pattee has identified that as a system becomes more elaborately hierarchical its behavior becomes simple. The reason is that, with the emergence of intermediate levels, the lowest level entities become constrained to be far from equilibrium. As a result, the lowest level entities lose degrees of freedom and are held against the upper level constraint to give constant behavior. Deep hierarchical structure indicates elaborate organization, and deep hierarchies are often considered as complex systems by virtue of hierarchical depth.
Complexity versus complicatedness: a hierarchical structure with a large number of lowest level entities, but with simple organization, offers a low flat hierarchy that is complicated rather than complex. The behavior of structurally complicated systems is behaviorally elaborate and so complicated, whereas the behavior of deep hierarchically complex systems is simple.
Hierarchy theory is as much as anything a theory of observation. It has been significantly operationalized in ecology, but has been applied relatively infrequently outside that science. There is a negative reaction to hierarchy theory in the social sciences, by virtue of implications of rigid autocratic systems or authority. When applied in a more general fashion, even liberal and non-authoritarian systems can be described effectively in hierarchical terms. There is a politically correct set of labels that avoid the word hierarchy, but they unnecessarily introduce jargon into a field that has enough special vocabulary as it is.
A SHORT ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF HIERARCHY THEORY.
This bibliography is in chronological order, so that the reader can identify the early classics as opposed to the later refinements. If you must choose just one book to read, turn to the last reference in this bibliography, Ahl and Allen, 1996. Simon, H.. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American philosophical society 106: 467-82. This is the foundation paper of hierarchy theory originating from an economist. It was a re-published in "Sciences of the Artificial" by Simon. It introduces the idea of near-decomposability. If systems were completely decomposable, then there would be no emergent whole, because the parts would exist only separately. The "near" in near-decomposable allows the upper level to emerge from the fact that the parts anre not completely separate.
Koestler, Arthur. 1967. The ghost in the machine. Macmillan, New York. This is a long hard look at human social structure in hierarchical terms. The notion of holon first occurs in this work. This is a classic work, but is easily accessible to the lay public.
Whyte, L.. L.., A. G. Wilson and D. Wilson (eds.). 1969. Hierarchical structures. American Elsevier, New York. This is a classic collection of early scholarly works by some of the founders of hierarchical thinking.
Pattee, H.. H. (ed.) 1973. Hierarchy theory: the challenge or complex systems. Braziller, New York. This edited volume has some classic articles by Pattee, Simon and others.
Allen, T. F. H. and T. B. Starr. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity. University Chicago Press. This book has a significant ecological component but is much more generally about hierarchical structure. It is abstract and a somewhat technical treatment but has been the foundation work for the application of hierarchy theory in ecology and complex systems theory at large.
Salthe, S. 1985. Evolving Hierarchical Systems: their structure and representation. Columbia University Press, New York. This book has a strong structural bias, in contrast to the process oriented approach of Allen and the other ecologists in this bibliography. Salthe introduces the notion of the Triadic, where there is a focus on 1) the system as both a whole above the levels below and 2) a part belonging to another level above, 3) not forgetting the level of the structure itself in between. While much biological hierarchy theory takes an anti-realist point view, or is at least reality-agnostic, wherein the ultimate reality of hierarchical arrangement is left moot, Salthe's version of hierarchy theory is concerned with the ultimate reality of structure. The anti-realist view of structure is that it is imposed by the observer, and may or may not correspond to any ultimate reality. If structure does correspond to ultimate, external reality, we could never know that to be so. Salthe's logic is consistent but always takes a structural and ontological position.
O'Neill, R. V., D. DeAngelis, J. Waide and T. F. H. Allen. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press. This is a distinctly ecological application of hierarchy theory, making the critical distinction between process functional ecosystem approaches as opposed to population and community relationships. It is an application of hierarchy theory to ecosystem analysis.
Allen T. F. H. and T. Hoekstra. 1992. Toward a unified ecology. Columbia University Press. This book turns on hierarchy theory, but is principally a book about ecology. It goes beyond the O'Neill et al book, in that it makes the distinction between many types of ecology (landscape, ecosystem, community, organism, population, and biomes) on the one hand, and scale of ecology on the other hand. It ends with practical applications of hierarchy theory and ecological management.
Ahl, V. and T. F. H. Allen. 1996. Hierarchy theory, a vision, vocabulary and epistemology. Columbia University Press. This slim a volume is an interdisciplinary account of a hierarchy theory, and represents the shallow end of the pool. It is the primer version of Allen and Starr 1982. It is full of graphical images to ease the reader into a hierarchical perspective. It makes the distinction between levels of organization and levels of observation. It takes a moderate anti-realist point of view, wherein there may be an external reality, but it is not relevant to the discourse. We only have access to experience, which must of necessity involve observer values and subjectivity. There are examples from a wide discussion of many disciplines. Included are examples from psychology, ecology, the law, political systems and philosophy. It makes reference to the global and technological problems facing humanity, and offers hierarchy theory as one tool in the struggle. The summary of hierarchy theory in the opening paragraphs above comes from this book.
