Week Three: Classical Theories
We began this week with an introduction to the discipline organizational communication. Our text authors, Modaff and DeWine, define organizational communication as "the process of creating, exchanging, interpreting (correctly or incorrectly), and storing messages within a system of human interrelationships" (4). At the core of their definition is the notion of misunderstanding. For Modaff and DeWine, organizational communications, and relationships in general, are characterized by misunderstanding (6). While there are many specific reasons for the misunderstandings that occur in workplaces, schools, governments and other types of organizations, one important commonality is the discrepancy between the organic nature of an organization, or orgnanon, and the machine metaphor used to structure its communication and managment processes.
Chapter two of Organizational Communication: Foundations, Challenges and Misunderstandings outlines the classical theories of organizational communication, all of which derive from the metaphor of the machine (22). The three most influential theorists discussed are Taylor, Fayol and Weber. Although distinct, each theorist holds tightly to a hierarchical communication structure. This means that each of these guys believe that all communication within an organization MUST flow in exact patterns, usually top-down. Below is a chart showing the similarities and differences between the three (Modaff and DeWine 36).
In our class discussion, we already concluded that classical theories do not seem to fit well with today's organizations or with today's increasingly global, diverse world. In the next chapters, we will explore alternatives to the classical approach.
-JOURNAL 3-
Critique the classical approach to organizational communication. Your (brief) critique can focus on a single theory or issue, or can address general communication complications generated by the top-down approach of Taylor, Fayol and Weber. Think about the concept "misunderstanding" as you articulate your crtiticisms. Also, try to use at least one example from your life to illustrate the complexity of organizational communication.
posted by Jen at Friday, February 10, 2006
10 Comments:
last friday on my job a emergency meeting was held by the uniform supervisors and civilian supervisor. they discuss the chain of command produres and rules of nycpd was not being followed by po, paa, pa on the nighshift. the supervisors stated for the future. We must go by superiors ranging from the lowest to the ultimate authority. (CHAIN OF COMMAND. When asking for job assignments to be changed,lost-time, e-days,meals hours.The NYCPD follows the Fayol theory: Principles of management in this meeting with the supervisors and worker the (SCALAR CHAIN)was given to the worker in order for them to communciate. they must follow up the (CHAIN OF COMMAND)through supervisors for example spaa,sergeant,lietenant,captain HARLEMNIGHT, STEPHANIE BURROWS
February 14, 2006 8:25 PM
Bessie said,
The Weber theory rational-legal bureaucracy fits in my organization of NYPD. The coordinator of the SCG loves reminding us of the rules and regulations when the bureaucracy is breathing down his neck, but when everything is running smoothly he does not care.
At the Academy we are given a book of rules, regulations, and job discriptions that we must follow (such as reporting and leaving post on time) which is the ideal organizational structure of the NYPD.
We are told to report any problems or conditions on our post to the coordinator, but in most cases we usually handle it ourselves.
When complaints are voiced to the coordinator he does not investigate the problem he usually acuse you of not doing your job, and threaten to give you a CD.
In one case, a SCG was given a CD because the coordinator was receiving complaints about her not being on her post on time, and she was threaten that if she did not sign the CD she would not get paid.
This would be fine if the coordinator enforced the rules and regulations to all SCG, and not the ones he choose to harass. He is very lax in his duty as coordinator because many of the SCG break the rules and he does nothing about it until bureaucracy gets involved.
February 15, 2006 1:52 PM
Carol said:
Journal # 3 - Scientific Management
Taylor developed his theories in an industrial setting. In this assembly line world, tasks are very regular and repetitive. With workers as just another interchangeable input to the manufacturing process, it is easy to optimization the process to arrive at the one best way to build the product at hand. Applying these methods to public administration is very appealing. Through scientific management, public administration becomes a very regularized process. Once the one best way to deliver public services is established the public can be assured that bureaucracy is working in the most efficient and effective manner possible. This also assures the public that each interaction with the government will be handled the same. With a regularized system of rules for public administration, the public can expect to be treated equally and have knowledge of the process in advance. Public organizations that achieve the principle of scientific management will serve the “public interest” in the one best way possible.
Of course achieving the ideals of scientific management is easier said than done. The idea of developing a best practice for delivering public services works very will for routine tasks of government. Entitlement programs routinely print and deliver checks to their clients with little trouble. These types of processes have been optimized. Unfortunately, most of the tasks facing a public administrator are far more complex problems.
One characteristic of complex problems is that they have unique circumstance that cannot be known in advance. It is difficult to develop a standard operating procedure for unknown problems. Even if the circumstances are known in advance, these complex problems do not have simple solutions. Interactions between environment and people and a whole host of other things muddy the water making it difficult to predict which is the right solution. There may not be a best solution in these complex situations. The lesser of two or three evils may be the best that can be done.
When the principles of scientific management are applied, all discretion is removed from the process. It is precisely these complex problems that require public administrators to use their judgment in dealing with the irregular case. In many instances, the irregular case is the rule not the exception. In these circumstances, the scientifically managed organization is without a mechanism to deal with the situation. Scientific management may have a place in some arenas of public administration, but it certainly is not a catchall solution for public administration in general.
February 15, 2006 4:17 PM
Melissa Said:
Out of all the three classical theory of organization (Chain of Command), the one I disagree with the most is the Fayol theory. Fayol approach is you can only speak to the person higher up to you who intern pass the info onto someone who higher then them. This will make your opinion never be heard. No one with ever hear your voice. I believe you should hear every one voice opinion including the one at the bottom of the chain. For the ones at the bottom of the chain there the ones making your organization work. This is the same method that is used in my organization. The executive director talks to the duty director and assistant director. Who later relates it the managers and assistant managers. In the end the workers are told what changes and new events are needed to be done. This is what we call a telephone trail.
February 15, 2006 5:55 PM
Jackie said:
Systematic IV: Participative. Likert argued for the participative system of management as the most effective form (Organ.Comm. P.58). Finally, throughout my fifteen years of working for NYCHA I’m tuly grateful to have Ms. Lisa Parnell as my boss while she uses the participative system approach. Although I appreciatiate how she does her job, when is there a cut off point when her genuine participation with her subordinates at lunch time conveys a conflict of interest through trivial discussion.
Example:Yolanda handed Linda a small plastic bag. Ms. Parnell jokingly ask if that was a drug bag and Yolanda got highly offended. Yolanda wasn’t sure what she was trying to accentuate. As of today Yolanda is still clueless about that comment. Meanwhile Lisa Parnell has no idea that she hurt her feelings.
February 19, 2006 6:57 PM
It seems the class has an excellent understanding of both the pros and the cons of classical approaches to organizational communication. On one hand, the approaches originated during a time when industrialization was new and scary. They provided owners, investors and managers with new tools to interact with workers. (Remember that before these theories, worker-manager relations were predominately slavery based!) Today, we recognize the archaic contruction of most classical theories. The metaphor of the machine no longer fits with our current worldview or with our relationships.
March 03, 2006 3:49 PM
Gretha said
In my present department of Capital projects, the scientific rule of management is in practice. Performing Service for the city Agency or the Housing Authority, the form of management exercised is the Taylor’s Theory. In other words Scientific Management is the way business is being done on a day to day basic. Public Administration is many ways conducted as in Taylor’s for or method of management, does not manufacture effective and dynamic work flow, especially in lower paid workers.
The main problem, according to Taylor, in to acquire employees to perform at their best at all times. On thing that would improve this system is that employers should offer their employees some nature of incentive to enhance their production. An example of some type of incentive is a bonus or merit increases for excellent performance. Simultaneously as practiced in other private companies, it will be a plus in public service for enhance production. Based on those observations, not too much of this is common practice. Many or all civil servants are given salary increases s and enhance based on a union negotiation.
In conclusion, scientific rule of management or Taylor’s Theory is not the best form of management for city workers; because its practice has created a cooperate workers culture that is not productive for some people. Public Administration should use exact and precise judgment before implementing this form of management.
April 10, 2006 7:31 PM
Following the Military and the Catholic Church, this theory was developed.
Both the Military and the Catholic are very strict. It is not a wonder why theroy is so riged with out bening which again will not fit in my line of work. I hate that my job is the only thing i can relate therories to.
Out side of my job my life is pretty much organized.
I might look into my life and see what theory fits. But as for now I will continue to use what doesn't work MY JOB!!!!!!!!!!
Tonya Woodruff
May 10, 2006 8:05 PM
Two weeks ago, my new superivisor had a meeting stating that since she cannot come every week to the Garden City office she is going to make her nephew our supervisor since he is already working in the office. Her nephew has been with the firm for three years and he does not know as much as the we who have been there for years know. I feel that that is poor management.
Maureen
May 24, 2006 2:31 PM
Learn more about Classical Theory of Management.
July 23, 2023 8:54 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home