All posts by asselikus

Neoclassical organizational theory

This post is the continuation of some inside information from Organizational Behavior and Governance.

According to Shafrits et al. Neoclassical Organization Theory is not totally new, it is modified Classical Organization Theory. Neoclassical Organization Theory became a foundation for further development of other org-n theories. Generally, Classical Organization Theory view organization as machine, while Neoclassical Organization Theory uses human factor, environment as a part of organization. This chapter includes several authors who developed the idea of Neoclassical Organization Theory. For instance, Chester Barnard in his The Function of the Executive writes about importance of cooperation of individuals, effort of individuals in task achievement. It unites org-n, creates right and wrong moral sense of behavior. Moreover the reasons for cooperation of individuals are wide from material inducement to ideal benefaction and it is not stable (Caster I. Barnard as cited in Shafritz et al., p.93). Robert Merton in 1940 wrote that Weber’s bureaucracy negatively affects people in org-ns, because it is not perfectly efficient. Neoclassical Organizational Theory challenged basic tenets of Classical Organization Theory mostly by Herbert A.Simon. He argues that “general principles of management” are not suited to the most administrative situations faced by managers. It means that if we view the organization in rational manner, it will never work in irrational situations.

To sum up previous ideas, Neoclassical theory is a plot for further development of organizational theories. It addressed many of the problems inherent in classical theory. Neoclassical approach introduced an informal organization structure and emphasized the following principles: individuals are not a part of machines, they are human being,  participative management.

After reading those chapters about classical and neoclassical organizational theories I started to think how I will operate as a director of the company. Here I am interesting about your ideas, do you think that machines more important that workers? Profit or human being?

Advertisements

Classical organizational theory

Dear HE, SL, MA, and Inclusive education, I want to share with you some ideas from Organiztional Behavior and Governance classes. We all more or less will work in organizations and this information can be useful. I want to start from the begining of the “organizational era”, from classical organizational theory. It includes historical roots of the organizations.

It is hard to say at what time exactly the Classical Organization Theory exist. It is usually associated with industrialization period in Great Britain, when huge factories operated, because it is the field of organization. However the roots of management come from ancient time of Moses and Socrates. The idea of Socrates is that good manager in one field can operate successfully in another field. The reason of it is that any organizations have the same structure, even if the goal of organizations is different (p. 27). Classical organization theory is the first fundamental theory, which is true even in our time. It was modernized, but basic features remain the same. According to Shafrits et all. (2005) they are: Org-n exist to accomplish production – related and economic goals; there is one best way to organize production, and that way can be found through systematic, scientific inquiry; production is maximized through specialization and division of labor; people and organizations act in accordance with rational economic principles (p.28). The way organization operates reflects the need of the time, the social values. In the past, organization was viewed as a machine. Workers were not individuals, but elements of those machines. To use all possibilities of machines were key to success. And it means that workers had an idea of “the best way” to organize production.

There are several important people. First, Adam Smith, the father of economics, found correlation between economics and organizations. His main idea was division of labor. The second name is Daniel C. McCallum, the authority of American railroad industry; his main idea was division of responsibilities. Next is Frederick Winslow Taylor, found general applicable principles of administration trough scientific investigation- “scientific management”. It helps to raise productivity, spirit of workers, rise profit. He made possible to plan and control organizational operations. His theory later started to call Taylorism movement. However the first man who developed comprehensive theory is Henri Fayol (french). He theorizes all elements needed to organize and manage big organizations .Max Weber studied bureaucratic organizations. Core of any org-ns: economic, social, political. Daniel A. Wren wrote that management is a process which reflects to the cultural environment.

To crown it all classical organization theory based on the “one best way” approach. One best way can be used in any given production task, therefore it can be used in any task of social organization.

Reference

Shafritz , J.M. , Ott, J.S.,  Jang, Y.S. (2005). Classics of Organizational Theory,  Cengage

Learning

Postcolonialism and globalization in education

Rizvi (2007) in his article argue the role of term globalization and postcolonialism in education. He strongly believes that globalization is not universal explanation of all circumstances in the XXI century. A lot of scholars accept term globalization as it exist, but not as a result of politics of naming. He suggests that postcolonial theory can be better used in education.

In this article Rizvi summaries that global context and effect of it on education inevitable and natural. However the word “context” has no exact meaning and it may change. So it is hard to show relationship of global context on education without historical roots. It mainly happened because of the misunderstanding of the process of globalization, it understands as universal characteristics.  Because of this universalism national education system and sovereignty of nation state endanger (Burbules and Torres as cited in Rizvi, 2007, p. 257). Globalization also seen as a possibility of “contemporary existence”, it means events in one part of the world have effects in another part (Rizvi, 2007).

According to Sassen there are some fundamental treats which illustrates the global integration.  Mostly they are economical, and do not take sociocultural and political processes into consideration much. Therefore it is crucial to understand the nature of globalization historically. Globalization is projection of European imperialism and colonialism. That is why Rizvi suggests using postcolonial theory to study globalization and education, because it includes historical and political context.

Postcolonialism is aftermath of colonization in which political control by dominant empires has ended, but newly independent states depend from global system of economic and cultural domination in which the former colonizers portray their hegemony. It shows how the colonizers shaped the colonized countries’ culture, relationship between them is complicated. Rizvi suggests, in order to understand education through postcolonialism it is important to take political aspect of it.

It is important to realize that education shaped by many factors. Before this article I did not think much about the roots of globalization. I did not think that imperialism and colonialism affect educational world so much. It is interesting to read that education overall changing all the time, and reflects the environmental changes of the time. In reading I found out the complexity of education as it reflects firstly to postcolonism then to globalization processes. Rizvi emphasize the needs of historical understanding of education in political context. I believe that Rizvi wants to deliver the importance of understanding the historical roots of globalization in order not to return to the way of the past, and live together in the better future.

Overall this article is call for using not only globalization theory, but postcolonialism also. This article rise a question should we think more about postcolonialism in education or globalization is enough? And if we will look on education only trough lenses of globalization, and borrowing policies what will be the development of education.

Rizvi, F. (2007).Postcolonialism and Globalization in Education. Cultural studies↔Critical  Methodologies, 7(3), 256-263.