April, 1968 ORGANIZATION THEORY BY Jon H. Barrett and Arnold S. Tannenbaum Institute for ...

36 Pages·2014·0.8 MB·English

April, 1968
ORGANIZATION THEORY
BY
Jon H. Barrett and Arnold S. Tannenbaum
Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan
A paper prepared for the Management-Career Education Project - Wayne
State University,
1 i
ABSTRACT
The principal theme of this paper is that organization is
order. No set of persons can achieve a collective purpose unless
their activities are orderly and predictable—people must come to
work at appropriate times, perform appropriate tasks in a proper
sequence, coordinate their efforts with other members, communicate
needed information to appropriate persons, and do similar things in
a non-random way. One of the primary responsibilities of any mana
ger is to make sure that a purposeful orderliness characterizes
the activities of his organization's members. He might use a num
ber of means to do this, including structural arrangements, job
specifications, selection and training procedures, leadership prac
tices, and strategies for integrating individual and organizational
goals. This paper explores each of these means and points out
changes that have occurred over the years in the kind of order
called for by different theorists. In addition, the concepts of
simple and complex order, socio-technical systems, and open systems
are explored as approaches to understanding the nature of order in
organizations.
ORGANIZATION THEORY
The scientific study of any phenomenon leads to changing ideas.
As research accumulates, older conceptions become obsolete and must
be modified or discarded in favor of formulations that can accommodate
the new "facts," Our ideas about what organizations are and how they
operate have changed considerably over the past fifty years and will
continue to evolve as study proceeds. Furthermore, organizations
themselves are changing. Rapid advances in the technologies available
to organizations, the rising education level of the general population,
the increasing general prosperity and the advent of unionism require
organizations that differ from those of earlier periods. In addition,
the scientific study of organizations is itself beginning to have an
effect on organizations, as behavioral scientists and administrators
seek ways to use emerging knowledge as a basis for increasing the effec
tiveness of organizations. Because both organizations themselves and
our ideas about them are continually changing, it probably will never
be possible to present the definition of organization or the princi
ples by which organizations function. What we can do, however, is
to keep our conceptualizations in tune with scientific knowledge as
this knowledge grows. This paper represents one such attempt to "keep
in tune," We will discuss organizational theory from a social psycho
logical point of view. Other papers will treat in detail many of the
issues that we touch upon in this chapter.
-2-
WHAT IS ORGANIZATION?
The term organization applies to a wide variety of phenomena, phy
sical as well as social. When we say that something is organized we
mean that it manifests some pattern or order. In the case of social
organization the order refers to the actions and interactions of people*
The patterns that comprise social organizations are not discernible in
the same way as are patterns of physical objects; we cannot feel or see
an organization as an entity. Nonetheless, orderliness in the inter
actions of persons can be denoted and measured, and this orderliness is
the essence of organization.
A basic criterion of order is predictability. In social organiza
tions, predictability is partly to be understood in terms of the ex
pectations that persons have about what others will do. To the extent
that the behavior of others conforms to expectations, we have some de
gree of order and the basis for organization; to the extent that the
behavior does not conform, we have disorder and disorganization.
Predictability in organizations manifests itself in a number of
ways. A first form of predictability occurs through certain unifor
mities of behavior on the part of members. For example, all or nearly
all members arrive at work, stop for lunch, and leave work at scheduled
times. Similarly, all persons in given categories perform prescribed
actions within certain tolerable margins of variation. Uniformities
may apply, not only to the members' behavior in the usual and narrow
sense, but also to their general appearance, dress, and to their ex
pressions of relevant attitudes. Thus the behavior of large numbers
-3-
of persons is predictable in terms of the single standard or norm
around which uniformity occurs,
A second form of predictability occurs when some members follow the
orders (or suggestions) of others. Thus the behavior of the former
conforms to and is predictable in terms of the expectations of the
latter. Such predictability is premised on the authority that some
persons have relative to others. Social organizations cannot exist
without such authority and the predictability that it creates.
Third, much behavior in organizations is predictable because it is
repetitive or cyclic. Organizations, in other words, manifest regu
larity through time so that with respect to many essential aspects the
behavior of members tomorrow will look pretty much like, and will be
predictable in terms of, their actions today.
Finally, many organizations have charters, plans, rules, and by laws.
These define in general terms how the organization should function, and
to the extent that the organization does function in these prescribed
ways, predictability is maintained.
In ongoing organizations there are, of course, exceptions to be ob
served to the ideal of order and predictability implied above, but
these exceptions simply imply something less than perfect organization.
However, imperfect organization may in fact be better, for some purpo
ses, than perfect organization—which raises a basic question: What is
order for? In the work organization, order is a means for the efficient
production of some product(s) or service(s). Attempts to maximize order,
however, sometimes result in defeating the organization's major purpose(s).
-4-
Much of so-called "bureaucratic red tape" and "paperwork" illustrate
attempts to achieve predictability which, if excessive, may have the
effect of impeding productivity.
Nonetheless a major problem for organizations is the maintenance of
order and the maximization of efficiency* Implicitly cr explicitly, this
problem has been the concern of a ll major organization theorists, and
the evolution of organizational theory can be seen as a development in
conceptions about the kind of order that characterizes, or should charac
terize, organizations for most effective functioning.
ACHIEVING AND MAINTAINING ORDER IN ORGANIZATIONS
Structural Arrangements
Organization theorists have considered a variety of structural arrange
ments for systematically relating parts of an organization to each
other. These structural arrangements can be viewed as expected patterns
of interaction among the members of an organization, which are more or
less formally specified, are reasonably stable through time, and repre
sent some degree of deliberate choice by organization leaders. Aspects
of structure include span of control, tallness or flatness, degree of
centralization, single or multiple reporting relationships, and channels
of communication. Many of these structural arrangements are schemati
cally represented, with varying degrees of accuracy, in the familiar
organization chart. By specifying for members the expected patterns of
communication, influence, and decision.making, structural arrangements
make it unnecessary for them continually to make individual decisions
regarding such procedural matters. They also reduce the possibility
-5-
that different individuals in the same position would reach different
decisions regarding whom to communicate with, take orders from, or
look to for decisions. It is in this way that structural arrangements
enhance the orderliness of organizational activities.
Span of control. The number of individuals reporting to a given
supervisor is called the span of control of that supervisor. Many
early writers felt that a limited span of control (no more than 5 to 7
subordinates) was necessary to insure that supervisors could adequately
inspect, coordinate, and correct the performance of their subordinates.
For example, Graicunas has argued that there is an inherent danger in
broadening the span of control because a superior supervises not only
individuals, but also the relationships between individuals. While the
addition of individuals to a group is an arithmetic function, the in
crease in number of relationships between individuals is geometric.
Hence, the number of relationships increases very rapidly with only small
[Place Table 1 about here]
increments in span of control. Spans greater than 5 or 6 thus are thought
to become intolerably complicated. Table 1, taken from Carzo and
Yanouzas illustrates the problem posed by Graicunas,^
Later writers challenged the principle of narrow span of control,
arguing that a broader span would give members more autonomy and en
courage them to develop self-reliance, thus improving the organization's
performance.^ Contemporary views tend to agree with Worthy that a
small span of control is not an effective principle for all situations.
TABLE 1.*
Number of Relationships with Various Numbers of
Subordinates
Number of Number of
Subordinates Relationships
1 1
2 6
3 18
4 44
5 100
6 222
7 490
8 . 1,080
9 2,376
10 . . . 5,210
t
11 11,374
12 24,708
•k
Taken from Carzo and Yanouzas, op cit.
-6-
One study found a span of control of 49 at the first level of supervision
to be characteristic of the more successful of a set of continuous pro
cess companies. This same study also indicated, however, that the
optimal span of control varied greatly for different methods of produc
tion—for companies which produced unique products to customer's orders
the optimal span of control was only 13. So while research evidence and
contemporary theory call for a broader span of control than earlier
theories, the particular span that is optimal appears to vary as a
function of such factors as organization size, type of production
technique, level of management concerned, and probably the personality
of the individual supervisor as well.
Tallness or flatness. Tallness or flatness is usually thought of
as a function of the number of hierarchical levels in an organization
relative to the total number of members. Classical theories stressed
the importance of relatively tall organization structures as the best
means of insuring adequate performance by organiztion members and of
coordinating the work of various sub-units. Their emphasis on narrow
span of control and close supervision implied this tall structure, as
did their assumption that the best way to insure coordination of the
efforts of sub-units was to provide a level of immediate supervision
over those units. More recent theorists stress the advantages of gen
eral supervision and broader span of control, thus implying that a
flatter structure may be more effective. In addition, recent theoreti
cal statements question the assumption that coordination requires the
addition of levels of supervision:
Still another of the forces which shapes the pyramid of
authority is the organizational axiom that every required
function must be clearly vested in some specific role...
Suppose, for example, that a small manufacturing company
has three major functional departments: manufacturing,
sales, and engineering design. The efforts of the three
departments must be coordinated if the organization is to
produce and sell some article... The usual logic of organi
zation says that since the three departments must coordi
nate, they must have a coordinator. Hence the organiza
tion acquires another level... We could object to this
deduction. The three departments must coordinate; why
should not the three department heads recognize this neces
sity and work out the necessary agreements?3
While generally calling for a flatter organization structure than classi
cal theorists, contemporary students of organization are trying to under
stand the conditions which might determine the relative effectiveness of
tall or flat structures. Two recent studies, for example, have found
that size of the organization may determine whether tall or flat struc
tures are more effective—at least in terms of providing satisfaction
for managers. These studies found that for organizations of less than
5,000 members, flatter structures produced greater satisfaction, whereas
for those with more than 5,000 members there was either no relation
ship or taller structures provided greater satisfaction. Other fac
tors, such as the type of organization activity (manufacturing, mili
tary, research, service), may also determine whether a flat or tall
structure is most effective.
Centralization or decentralization. Two elements help define the
concept of centralization: (1) the hierarchical level at which deci
sions are made, and (2) the number of persons involved in making any
given decision. Some approaches emphasize a centralized form of or
ganization in which the ultimate authority for making decisions should