Organizational Theory Project

Organizational Theory Project

Principles of Organization Theory and Practice
Part 1 Organizational Theories
T-Mobile just like many other modern companies has embraced the concept of organization theory. Organizational theory can be defined as the learning of proper structures of organization. And as all sorts of science has a dealing of various aspects like target, the knowledge of understanding, a well defined prediction, and an overall end control. In organizational theory, knowledge is created to have an understanding of organizational structure for a better prediction along with control effectiveness of organization or level of productivity by creating a sketch of organizations (Tsoukas, 2000).
An organization can be defined as a group of people who work together with a hierarchy of jurisdiction for the achievement of a common destination (Tsoukas, 2000). Management is inferred by acting together in continuity under a control toward the attainment of a particular goal. Well organized companies go for nothing but proper management of their activities (Altman and Iles, 1998). There are two main theories that contribute to management of T- Mobile and these are; Classical Theory and Theory of Human Relations (Thompson, 2004).
In the light of the foregoing the crust of the analysis that will be carried out in this study essentially focuses on modernism and post-modernism as the cardinal theories to facilitate the study of T-Mobile as a contemporary corporate entity. At the heart of the analysis will be a diligent effort to succinctly gauge the veracity or otherwise of the ability of postmodernism as a relevant factor in the organization success of the corporation under review just in the same way as it will also gauge the overall usefulness or lack of it thereof to the contemporary management practice.
To achieve this goal, my argument will introduce and highlight both modernism and postmodernism within the context of a contemporary organizational theory. By so doing the foundational limits would be clearly defined to guide further discussion of all the contending issues surrounding both theories. Naturally, for the purposes of understanding of the relevance of the theory of postmodernism there should a corresponding familiarity with the its related concept modernism.
T- Mobile has borrowed much of its principles of organization theory from major theorists. Contribution of distinct figures is very much evident in this area of organizational theory. Max Weber (1947) put forward his work in the form of Classical theory which contained the formulation of the bureaucracy idea. Weber, at first viewed bureaucracy as an organization whose characteristics were evident lines and rules of authority, responsible for making all necessary decisions and whose implementation was carried out under supervision (Wheatley, 1992). Initial doctrines of Weber about an explicit hierarchy of power were the basis of scientific management theory laid by Frederick Taylor (1911) who had a deep belief that a cautious selection of a particular employee having a proper training needed for a particular specialization can lead to an enhancement of proper operation of that specific organization (Thompson, 2004). The employee should be appointed under the tight supervision of the management of that organization. Henri Fayol’s (1949) classical theory of organization also had a great emphasis on the authority structure. Fayol highly emphasized on the efficiency of absolute rules and regulations about the authority and control in the particular organization (Altman and Iles, 1998).

Part 2
There is no gain denying that the concept of organizational theory comes with its own package of complexities that are not just sufficiently capable of addressing the increasingly dynamic terrain of organizational management in our day and age (Hatch, 1997). In furtherance to this, Hatch (1997) extends the landscape for the definition of what constitutes an organization to include a social establishment, a traditional movement, a visible edifice, a technology among many others. An organization also gyrates from the fulcrum of realistically defined perspectives such as conflict and control; decision making and change and what have you.
It becomes pardonable to understand the scope of events within the domain of organizational theory giving that much of what is known about the concept within the realms of academia are credited to twentieth century scholarship (Hancock and Tyler, 2001). Thanks to capitalism and industrialization the theory of modernism has become part of the concept of organizational management. Its growth in depth and scope has been very phenomenal judging by the incorporation of pioneering works of thinkers such as Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx and a host of others. Each of these scholars in their respective distinct ways have been magnanimous in contributing to the crystallization of classical thinking that has its hallmark in the management process of bureaucracy (See Mullins, 2000 as he also discusses other areas of the social sciences that relate to control and scientific management; Cooper and Burrel, 1988 is also another helpful source).
Modernism notwithstanding has gone through phases of evolution even as an organization theory within the second half of the twentieth century by way of the proliferation of the so-called critical modernism and systemic modernism. The latter according to Cooper and Burrell (1988) is mainly considered as the “values and methods embedded within the rise to prominence of the natural sciences, combined within the deployment of formal rationality to identity and resolve problems of order and control.” A good example of this sub-division of modernism is the scientific cybernetic decision making model.
A critical examination of this strand of modernism indicates a commitment to the pursuit of a human development agenda driven by technology. In other words technology becomes the driving force of all actions. Critical modernism does also exhibit some degree of similarity with the systemic modernism by the fact that they are both geared towards the pursuit of development. Whilst technology is paramount to the latter the human ingenuity through cognitive deliberation is at the heart of the former. Cooper and Burrell (1988) after a scrupulous review of both sides to the discourse concedes that despite painstaking attempts to dissect and separate the sides at the end of the day they become mutually exclusive in the ways by which they are able to be complementary in their effects.
In many ways the advent of postmodernism is therefore viewed by many scholars including Mullins (2001) as a direct response to the process of better enhancing the understanding of the concept of modernism beyond its generic scope (Tsouvalis, 2002; Kant, 1991; Hatch, 1997). A good starting point is to acknowledge that postmodernism is a huge cluster of several theories some of which are similar whilst some are very contrasting. There is however very limited consensus amongst scholars regarded the overall usage and application of postmodernism in contemporary organizations. Tsouvalis (2002) maintains that its usage is not as widespread as generally perceived — the conclusion he reached reflects the findings of a concise empirical study to this effect.
Anderson (1998) for instance, cites the renowned Jean Lyotard as an authority in postmodernism who gained fame for his unwavering believe in the three factors of “difference,” “knowledge” and “language” as the prime premise upon which to conceptualize postmodernism as philosophical base built on the notion of it being a discourse. Lyotard as cited by Anderson (1998) is very determined to steer mainstream thinking away from what is often seen as universal laws and other related forms of knowledge defined by modernity. Knowledge as viewed by Lyotard is by many measures a non-linear phenomenon. It is scattered around and must therefore be gathered together to make a complete whole.
In the same vein Jacques Derrida also expresses interest in the role of deconstruction and language for which reason he defines the former as being “a methodological strategy which seeks to uncover layers of hidden meaning in a text which have been denied or suppressed.” He leaves the interpretation of the term text in the definition, that is to say a text can be used to refer to any phenomenon that conveys a message to an audience (Derida, 1982). To be able to understand this thinker within the context of postmodernism it becomes imperative to follow his line of thoughts. He calls for a complementary approach to understanding the meaning of words vis-à-vis synonyms and antonyms. Though separate they provide a fair understanding of what each side denotes. For instance there is a connection between happiness and sadness. Though they stand on opposite sides they essentially convey a message that is interconnected at the end of the day.

WRITE THIS ESSAY FOR ME

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper.

Get Help Now!

Both words construct each other thereby, understanding the deeper extension of a term requires literally deconstructing. Invariably construction and deconstruction are set to be built hierarchically with a base that links them on the power fiber thus clearly defining what Derida means by “difference.” Actions and inactions if so to speak should be clearly thought out as part of the bid to align with the universal truths that are the building blocks of modernism.
Michel Foucault is another great mind that is worth considering under this section. The bulk of his work was centered on knowledge, subjectivity and power all brought together under a union of his so-called “discourse” terminology. He argues that it is always prudent to engage discourses within their right contexts. The point is that everything should be described in a way that shows clearly what it is and in the same describe it to show clearly what it is not. On the question of power Foucault argues that power is not spatially limited and for that matter he was always preoccupied with establishing the link between power and knowledge for the most part of his work. If power is everywhere and in almost everything then his point of contention arose from the inherent desire to know how human beings are connected to the things that they create as a manifestation of power and again technology has been given prominence in his inquisition. He steadily arrives at the conclusion that man is the product of the creative power of his or her environment in the most absolute sense (Hicks, 2004).

What are the Stakes for Postmodernism?

Thus far, a salient question to ask is the significance of postmodernism on the dynamics of organizational theory in our day and age and most importantly how it fits into the management processes in T-Mobile. It will be recalled from the preceding section that the core elements of defining the structures of postmodernism such as discourse and deconstruction have been cited as a direct response to the difficulties arising from satisfactorily finding a befitting place for modernism under a constantly evolving world system. Arguably, above all other things there is a strong connection between the rapidly evolving world of our day and its attendant relay of very unstructured events.
In contrast we now have a bre