Keywords: organization; Organizational structure theory; Organizational theory; manage
Since Taylor opened up the organization theory at the end of 19 and the beginning of the 20th century, the system organization theory has gone through the development process from classical organization theory, behavioral science organization theory to modern organization theory. The evolution of organizational theory is closely related to the needs of social existence and management practice, and its development history is a process of constant sublation and dialectical negation.
First, the evolution of classical organization theory
19 At the end of the 20th century, in the United States and Europe, capitalist enterprises made some progress and demanded higher and higher management. During this period, the study of organizational theory is divided into three schools: scientific management school, administrative management school and bureaucratic system school.
The scientific management school represented by Taylor advocates the implementation of functional management system. It is necessary not only to establish a separate functional management organization, but also to implement a professional and standardized division of labor among the management functions within the functional management organization, so that all functional personnel can only undertake the management functions of 1 to 2. The principle of decentralization exception is put forward to make a reasonable division of labor between superiors and subordinates. The superior authorizes the general daily affairs to the lower-level managers, and only reserves the decision-making power of exceptional special management matters and the supervision power of the lower-level work.
Fa Yueer is a representative of the school of administrative management. He put forward five basic functions of management, namely, planning, organization, command, coordination and control, and thought that organizational function was a very important function. At the same time, he put forward the organizational model of linear-functional system and designed the organizational form of direct contact between superiors and subordinates to solve the problem of crossing the unified command chain, that is, the "springboard of the law"; He also summarized the general management principles of 14, including organizational functions.
Weber's bureaucratic theory holds that the organizational governance mechanism has three foundations: one is the rational foundation, that is, the organization is based on the belief in power and rules and organizes activities through corresponding rules; The second is the traditional foundation, that is, the sacred belief of the organization based on the ancient tradition and ruling identity; The third is the charm foundation, that is, the organization is based on specific and unusual individuals and their ruling methods; At the same time, Weber demonstrated the rationality of bureaucracy with the concept of reasonable and legal authority, and put forward his own views on the organizational structure of bureaucracy: the top layer is the main person in charge, whose main function is decision-making, the middle layer is the general manager, whose main function is to implement the decisions made by the main person in charge, and the bottom layer is the business personnel, whose main function is to engage in specific business work. Weber demonstrated the rationality of individual behavior and the legitimacy of social order, and formed a classic "bureaucratic organization theory", which is called "the father of organization theory".
Gullit and urwick's organization theory is based on Taylor and Weber's organization theory. Gulick put forward the famous theory of "Seven Functions of Management", which holds that the goal of organization is coordination, while urwick put forward eight principles of organization theory. Their theory marks the formation of the "classic management organization theory" system.
Classical organization theory constructs a centralized hierarchical organization structure, which adapts to the transformation of social production system from workshop-style small production system to factory-style socialized large production system, and promotes the improvement of organizational efficiency and the development of productivity. Classical organizational structure theory explains the reasons for the change of organizational structure with its scientific and reasonable accuracy, rigor and universality, and pays attention to the generalization and analysis of the basic principles of organizational management.
Second, the evolution of organizational theory in the period of behavioral science
With the progress of science and the development of technology, more and more management scientists think that an organization is not only an economic system, but also a social system. People should be motivated not only by economic factors, but also by social and psychological satisfaction, which is very important for improving organizational efficiency. Therefore, from the 1920s to the 1940s, the organization theory in the behavioral science period, represented by Mayo and Barnard, came into being.
Mayo, the founder of "Interpersonal School", put forward the hypothesis of "social person": he believed that the members of an organization are complex, and people need not only money, but also social and psychological needs, that is, to pursue friendship, security, belonging and respect between people; At the same time, he put forward the problem of "informal organization", thinking that informal groups in management organizations play an important role in determining productivity and are interdependent with formal organizations; Finally, he also emphasized the comprehensive management skills of leaders, which he thought was very important for dealing with interpersonal relationships.
Barnard put forward the viewpoint of organizational system. He believes that organization is a system of interaction between people. Since it is a system, there is mutual cooperation between organizations and people, and cooperation requires the organic connection of individuals, goals and information. At the same time, Barnard also studied informal organizations, which he believed could also play an important role. Finally, Barnard put forward the "authority acceptance theory", in which he believed that authority was the approval of subordinates to superiors, rather than the status of superiors.
The organizational structure theory of this period attached importance to the importance of people in the organization and insisted on explaining the changes of the whole organizational structure with psychological factors and social factors. At the same time, in order to meet the needs of inter-organizational cooperation, the organizational structure of this period adopted decentralized hierarchical organizational forms, including division system, super-division system, matrix and other forms, which was beneficial for producers to participate in decision-making, improve management efficiency, and meet the needs of organizational scale expansion, product diversification and market internationalization.
Third, the evolution of modern organizational theory
Management practice promotes the development of organizational theory. After World War II, management practice is faced with the rapid development of science and technology, the trend of internationalization of the market, the massive accumulation of material and human resources, and the increasingly complex organizational model and relationship formed by these resources. Obviously, the previous organizational theory is not enough. It is unique to analyze the internal structure of the organization, the relationship between management activities and the environment with the principles, methods and ideas of system theory. In fact, the organization theories in this period include system organization theory, contingency system organization theory, group ecology theory and resource dependence theory.
According to the system organization theory, the system is an open and integrated social and technical system, and the representatives are homans and Kaster. Homans's social system model holds that any social organization is in a physical, cultural and technical environment, which determines people's activities and interactions in the social system. Custer believes that an organization is an artificial open system, composed of self-companies, and each self-company forms a complete system through the relationship between output and input. Only by adapting to the changes in the environment can an organization survive.
Contingency school emphasizes the fickle nature of organizations and thinks that there is no difference between the advantages and disadvantages of organizational structure itself. As long as the organizational structure adapts to the environment, it is efficient, and there is no universally applicable organizational management theory. This theory is a complete negation of classical organization theory and behavioral science organization theory, which emphasize form and normative mode. The organizational structure theory that is suitable for the system organization theory and contingency school is the system contingency organizational structure theory.
Synecology theory, also known as natural selection model, was put forward by Aryus Qi and Pfeiffer. This theory applies synecology's theory of biology to the analysis of organization theory, and holds that the survival of organizations in the environment is the same as the survival of the fittest: the environment selects some organizations or eliminates some organizations according to the characteristics of organizational structure and its adaptability to the environment.
Synecology's theory emphasizes the role of choice and weakens the role of organizational actors in determining the fate of an organization. Therefore, Pfeffer and Salancik put forward the theory of resource dependence, which holds that organizations depend on external resources and emphasize the importance of their ability to obtain resources from the environment. Its essence is to regard organizations as active participants rather than passive recipients in environmental relations.
Group ecology theory and resource dependence theory hold that organizational environment is the main determining force of organizational structure, rather than the change of organizational structure led by managers, and there is no fixed, universally applicable and universally applicable organizational structure, so this organizational structure theory is the theory that environmental determines organizational structure.
The theory of organizational structure in this period focuses on the relationship between organization and environment. At the same time, in order to adapt to this relationship, the organizational structure of this period became more flexible, and flat network organizations such as team-based work units, temporary working groups and network organizations developed rapidly. Practice has proved that this flexible organizational structure can enable enterprises to obtain more information and adapt to the fierce competitive environment.
Fourthly, the evolution logic of western organization theory.
Engels pointed out that "where history begins, the ideological process begins, and the further development of the ideological process is only a reflection of abstract and theoretically consistent forms in the historical process; This kind of reflection is revised, but it is revised according to the law of the actual historical process itself. At this point, each element can be checked at its fully mature and exemplary development point. "When we study organizational theory, we must start with her history. As Ryan said, "Let's turn a page in history and prepare for the future. "
Historical materialism holds that social existence determines social consciousness. As Marx said, "it is not human consciousness that determines human existence, but human social existence that determines human consciousness." Any social science has its historical process of emergence and development, which comes from social practice and develops with the development of social practice. The evolution of organizational theory is always closely related to external social environment, internal operating efficiency and management practice, and its development is also a continuous process.
The core of classical organization theory is the rationalization of organizational structure, which focuses on the design of organizational structure, the basic principles of organizational operation and the basic functions in organizational management. Although the classical organizational structure theory is more accurate, faster and more efficient in work, with the increasing importance of human factors in organizational management, its shortcomings are increasingly apparent, which puts forward new requirements for paying attention to people in management. Therefore, in this context, the organizational theory in the period of behavioral science came into being.
The organizational theory in the behavioral science period is actually a supplement and perfection to the classical organizational theory. From the 1920s to the 1940s, it was the motivation that restricted the organization to further improve its efficiency. At the same time, due to the outbreak of 1929 economic crisis, people's demand for a sense of belonging is increasingly urgent, so the human factor that was neglected in the early stage has been put on the agenda. The greatest contribution of organizational theory in this period is to pay full attention to people's emotional and psychological needs, thus solving the problem of organizational dynamic structure. Although the organizational structure theory of behavioral science pays attention to the informal organization that is neglected by the classical organizational structure theory, its over-emphasis on personal feelings and psychology leads it to the other extreme opposite to the classical organizational structure theory, that is, it ignores the existence of formal organizations and lacks research on rational and economic factors.
Whether it is the classical organization theory or the organization theory in the behavioral science period, their research focuses on the management object, ignoring the research on managers. They regard the organization as a closed system, without considering the influence of the environment on the organization, and cannot study the whole picture of the organization theory comprehensively and deeply. Therefore, with the vigorous development of science and technology and the increasing socialization of production, an organization theory based on system theory stands out.
In the mid-20th century, modern organization theory guided by system theory gradually stepped onto the historical stage. Modern organization theory holds that organization is an open system. It not only analyzes the characteristics of organizational subsystems and their interrelationships from within the organization, but also pays attention to the interaction between the organization and the external environment. It shifts the focus from the inside of the organization to the external environment (continued on page 80), and from the point of view that the organization passively adapts to the environment to influence the environment. The theory of system contingency organizational structure integrates the viewpoints of classical organizational structure theory and behavioral science organizational structure theory to a certain extent. It not only sees human factors, but also attaches importance to the role of structure. It combines the two and tries to redesign the organization. The theory that environment determines organizational structure holds that the external environment of an organization determines the change of organizational structure. Although these two organizational structure theories can better meet the needs of management when the complexity and variability of organizational environment are further improved, it should also be noted that they do not take into account the positive role of managers in organizational structure reform.
The above three stages are the historical evolution of organizational theory from its formation to the present. This historical evolution process is the result of social development, the need of management practice and the product of socialized mass production and specialized division of labor. Although the research angles, methods and contents of each stage are different, the research problems are basically the same, and there are some transitional or intersecting factions between these three stages. Some theories were put forward earlier, and later paid attention to, and some theories were replaced, but some contents are still used by people today.
By reviewing and analyzing the development stage and evolution process of organization theory, we can clearly see that organization theory is a dialectical process of coming from and serving practice, a development process of unifying cognition and practice, a sublation process of inheritance and development, and a dialectical negation process. With the passage of time, the internal logic and laws of the development of organizational theory will continue.