Edcel Climacosa GRADUATE STUDIES DEPT. MASTER OF RTS IN ADMINISTRATION & SUPERVISION EDUC. 224: HUMAN RELATION
NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATION Analysis of organization is essential to the understanding society. Such study of organization has become significant in the past decades to stress varying theories theories of organization in an ever increasing degree. It has likewise grown in value and importance with the need to know more of organization structure and context. Despite these developments, however, few attempts have been made to study public administration as an organization. It should be borne in mind that public administration is not only an important aspect of government; it is the business itself of government. On the other hand, the business of public administration is national development.
This chapter will, therefore, look into the nature and development of an organization, organization, Specifically, it will attempt to discuss the following subjects. 1. Defini Definitio tion n of Organiz Organizati ation on 2. The differe different nt Theorie Theories s of Organi Organizatio zation n 3. Trends Trends on Organizatio Organization n Development Development in in the Philippin Philippines es In this undertaking, the following terms are defined as follows: 1. Theory Theory is a mere hypothesis, hypothesis, conjecture conjecture,, individual individual view or notion. notion. 2. Trend is a general direction, course or tendency.
Definition of Organization Organization Achievem Achievement ent is the be-all and the end-all of any organization organization.. For any organi organizat zation ion to achieve achieve someth something ing,, it must must be organi organized zed,, operat operated ed and administered. Organi ganiza zati tion on is noth nothiing more ore than than the mech mechan aniism by whi which administration directs, coordinates and controls its business. It is, indeed, the very foundation of administration. When the organization is ill-designed structurally, when it passes for a makeshift arrangement, administration has been met. To be more precise, organization seeks to know “who is to do what is to be done.” ¹ A good executive may be able to secure good results with a poor organization, and a good organization may produce results from a poor executive. A social scientist, Robert S. Weiss, has defined organization as a social form with four basic characteristics, namely: 1. a set of of indivi individual duals s in office office;; 2. individual individuals s responsibility responsibility for definite definite tasks –functional –functional activitiesactivities- which which are parts of a division of labor; 3. an organizatio organizational nal goal to which the activit activities ies of the staff contribut contribute e 4. a stable system system of coordinativ coordinative e relationshi relationships, ps, or a structure. structure.
Alvin Toffler, defines organization as a “structure of rule filled by humans.”
Different Theories on Organization In most organizations, various form s may be adopted to achieve organizational goals effectively with the least cost. For instance, a government may adopt not only one but several theories on organization, may discard some principles of one theory but adopt what it finds suitable for it purpose. For purposes of comparison, some organization theories with their unique characteristics, usefulness and perhaps, limitations, will be examined in this chapter. Firstly, there is the machine model or scientific management theory of an organization. As propounded by its discoverer, Frederick W. Taylor, the machine model bears the following peculiarities: 1. Division of labor and specialization. The functions of the organization arte differentiated and placed in separate departments (departmentalization). 2. Unity of command and centralization of decision-making. For the various parts of the organization to function correctly, there must be unified command at the top of the organization. 3. One-way authority. Authority flows down the line of command, from the top to the bottom of the organization. 4. Narrow span of control. There is a limit to the number of immediate subordinates that any one individual can effectively supervise. Also, Taylor suggested fictionalizations as a system of organization. This technique would, according to Taylor, make maximum use of the specialization skills of individuals in the organization. He applied the concept of functionalization to forcemen. Another organization operates on the theory of bureaucracy. Max Weber’s contribution to the organization theory, the bureaucratic model, clearly resembles Taylor’ scientific management.
The bureaucratic type, as earlier stated in chapter 3, is characterized as follows: 1. Division of labor, with specified spheres of competence legitimized as official duties. 2. Hierarchical arrangements of offices, that is, each lower office is below a higher one. 3. Rules for carrying out the work, to be applied uniformly to individual cases. 4. Impersonality, The official is subject to an impersonal order and established norms of conduct and he acts objectively in his contacts with individual inside and outside of the organization. 5. Officials are selected on the basis of competence, and not on irrelevant considerations. A third organization operates on what is called the human relations approach or social ethics theory. This type responds well to a society that is becoming increasingly characterized by interdependence. A reappraisal of this type, however, brought out the fact that it proceeded upon the mistaken assumption that all would be solved if managers expertly applied human relations skills in their dealings with workers.
Robert T. Golombiewski, the exponent of “man-centered” organization, believes that “moral sensitivity can be associated with satisfactory output and employee’s satisfaction. He showed how jobs, work environment, as follows: 1. Work must be psychologically acceptable to the individual. Its performance should not be generally to threaten the individual. 2. Work must allow man to develop his faculties. 3. The work task must allow the individual considerable room for selfdetermination. 4. The worker must have the possibility of controlling, in a meaningful way, the environment within which the task is to be performed. 5. The organization should not be the sole and final arbiter of behavior. Both the organization and the individual must be subject to an external moral order. On the other hand humanist, like Warren G. Bennis, believe that democracy is an inevitable element in modern organizations. Basing their arguments on pragmatic grounds. Bureaucracy, they contend, no longer works and democracy is a “system of values” characterized by the following factors: 1. Full and free communication, regardless of rank and power. 2. A reliance on consensus, rather than on the more customary forms of coercion or compromise, to manage conflict. 3. The idea influence is based on technical competence and knowledge rather than on the vagaries of personal whims or prerogatives of power.
