Organizational Theory | Structures | Learning

Introduction

Throughout the past five weeks of class, I have developed an understanding of the historical context of organizational theory, some of the research/theorists associated with various organizational theories and the evolution of organizational structures. The variety of organizational structures discussed in class and in chapter three of “Guide to Organization Design: Creating High-Performing and Adaptable Enterprises” peaked my interest in various models associated with organizations. As I was reading, I jotted down a few questions that came to mind. These included:

-          Is there an organizational structure called: collaborative structure?

-          What does 21^st century org theory look like?

-          What is organizational learning?

-          What is organizational creativity or innovation?

To address a few of these questions, I read four journal articles to develop my understanding which in turn caused me to develop more questions about organizations. This demonstrates that organizational theory is a dynamic and growing field.   

Question 1: What does 21^st century organizational theory look like?

“Organization theory studies the origin, structure, persistence, change, and disappearance of organizations, as well as the relations constructed among them and the impacts they have on individuals and the broader society. The basic imagery is of organizations as meaningfully bounded units responding to various pressures prompting adaptation or, failing that, selection” (David, G.F., McAdam, D., 2000).

David, G.F., et al. (2000) presents the definition above but explains that it is difficult to apply it to current organizational theory due to our current economy. The American economy is going through a “third industrial revolution” where the mass production paradigm in breaking down, traditional labour markets are breaking down and global markets are expanding considerably (David G.F., 2000). Traditional organization theory portrays organizations as entities with boundaries and centralized control. However, the current economy and markets demonstrate that organizations have networks and are malleable. A problem with organizational theory is that the terminology and ontology is based on Taylor’s scientific management model where organizations are closed entities where all steps of production were within the one entity. Two trends in the U.S. on organizational theory since the second war include shifts in the social structures of production and markets that are globally controlled. Thus, network production systems are a better way to describe organizational structure in the current century. This type of structure emphasis that organizations have fluid boundaries (David G.F., et al., 2000). Organizations change and are influenced by social movements. These social movements produce changes in organizational structure and theories (Rao, H., Morril C., and Zald, M.N., 2000). Looking at organizational structure through a networked structure will give theorists a better understanding of how social structures effect, change, influence and mold 21^st century organizations.  

Question 2: What does 21^st century organizational structure look like?

Organizational structures are beginning to be looked at more frequently in terms of social structures. This includes looking at how sociology (culture and politics) can influence and effect organizational structures. Rooted in culture are systems of power and leadership which can be reflected in organizational structures. A number of studies have shown how social movements can affect the organizational structure. This is an example of how factors outside the organization influence the its structure and thus defying Taylor’s scientific model of an organization as a closed entity. The aim of new structionalists is to breakdown the walls that divide the study of organization from sociology (Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., 2003).

Question 3: What is organizational learning?

I came across the term organizational learning during one of the readings and was intrigued by what it meant in the 21^st century. In addition, in another M.Ed. course, personal learning networks were discussed which provoked me to link organizational structures to personal learning networks. This idea was augmented while reading about network production systems and how personal learning networks influence organizational structures and learning.

I better understood the idea of organizational learning after reading “Patterns and structures of intra-organizational learning networks within a knowledge intensive organization” (Skerlavaj, M., Dimovski, V., Desouza K.C., 2010). Determining the structure of intra-organizational learning networks is difficult due to lack of data in the field. Organizational learning occurs when information is transformed into knowledge which in turn is processed into action. This propels behavioural and cognitive changes. This form of learning can happen at a variety of levels including individuals, groups and inter-organization based. There are two prominent perspectives on learning in organizations: the participation perspective and the acquisition perspective. The acquisition perspective claims that knowledge can be transferred from one individual to the next. The participation perspective claims that “learning is function of participation in communities of practice” meaning knowledge gained through other medium than instruction based methods (Skerlavaj, M., et al., 2010). The idea of network learning combines both aspects of the acquisition perspective and the participation perspective. This perspective posits that learning within an organization is relational and can be individual based. Network learning studies the collection of individuals within the network and how they interact, exchange information and act on information. Sociograms which are two-dimensional diagrams that show the relationships between units of individuals can be used to explain and demonstrate network learning.  

Conclusion

It is evident through these papers and from our class readings that organizational theories are created and developed by organizations; the theories cannot work on their own terms, limits and conditions. Thus, we need to develop new terminology and vocabulary to explain the organizational theories and structures within our current economy (David G.F., et al., 2000). Through class discussions, and readings, I have developed an appreciation for the vastness of organizational theory and structures. My original thoughts on organizational theory were based on a bureaucratic view of large, centralized organizations. However, my view is churning into a holistic image of the changing structures and theories that have evolved over time and continue to evolve to depict current organizations. Reading about newer and evolved organizational theories and structures is also developing my 21^st century model for the organization I’d like to develop for the final assignment.

References

David, G.F., McAdam, D. (2000). Corporations, Classes and Social Movements After Managerialism. Research in Organizational Behaviour , 22, p.195-238.

Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M. (2003). The New Structionalism in Organizational Theory. Organization Articles, 10(3).

Rao, H., Morril, C., Zald, M.N. (2000). Power Plays: How Social Movements and Collective Action Create New Organizational Forms. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22, p. 239-282.

Skerlavaj, M., Dimovski, V., Desouza K.C. (2010). Patterns and structures of intra-organizational learning networks within a knowledge intensive organization. Journal of Information Technology.