Organizational theory and open public management

Organizational Analysis, Karl Marx, Public Administration, Bureaucracy

Excerpt from Term Paper:

Organizational Theory and Public Management:

Marx, Weber, and Freud.

Once one thinks the huge topic of organizational theory, one of the primary names in modern analyze is undoubtedly Robert B. Denhardt. As a professor of General public Administration for Arizona Condition University, he has written numerous works on the topic of human being behavior as it relates to public organization. Naturally , in today’s world, this area of study is no small thing – for in virtually every culture the function of the business – especially the public/governmental corporation is of huge influence for the lives of humankind. In such an environment, then, Denhardt has come to concentrate directly on issues of tendencies and ethics – and draws heavily on the suggestions of Weber, Marx and Freud to illustrate precisely how the regulating theories and scholarly assumptions concerning organizational theory has evolved into what one acknowledges today.

Of course , one of the most influential thinkers about organizational theory was Max Weber. In respect to Weber, the “organization” or the “bureaucratic administration” is a symbol of the exertion of control based on knowledge.

What was interesting about his work, nevertheless was his distinction between idea of “power” and “authority”-where actual authority is distinguished by a opinion in the “legitimacy” of the physical exercise of electric power (as apposed to despotism, for example). Further, one more hallmark of his job was his classification of organizational power based on the kind of legitimacy naturally by these governed by that electric power.

One type of company power might be based on something akin to person “charisma. inches In this case, there must be a kind of feeling of sacred proper of the leading individual or perhaps organization. Therefore, the “divine right of kings” in lots of nations (Historical England, pertaining to example), could possibly be explained under this going. So , as well, may be a religious organization (Catholicism under the Pope), or even a little “cult” (The People’s Temple).

Another type that Weber characterizes is usually one of “tradition. ” That is, perhaps traditionally (as in a cultural sense), an individual or perhaps society might bow to a organizational electrical power because it has long been so – for instance, in a Bedouin group where 1 allows a “tribal head, ” to acquire authority or perhaps final “say” over the fortune of the individual or perhaps individuals within the tribe.

Finally, Weber goes on to describe the third type of power which is depending on a “rational legal authority. “

This really is a type of expert legitimized or perhaps agreed upon based on a code of laws or rules that make it so. For example , most modern “democracies, inches especially kinds like the one exemplified in the United States derive from the ardor and popularity of authority based on democratic law (especially the regulations of election).

However , this is simply not to say the fact that rational type of authority is actually pure in form. On the other hand, it can be, by least at some level, tinged by other two styles – essentially producing a sort of legitimization of power based on the combined strength of cultural, ideological/moral, as well as legal ideologies. For example , the present Bush administration is within some ways buoyed simply by all three – with some spiritual or nationalistic groups assuming the nation is “destined” to get led by present administration, that it is necessary to pledge allegiance to the supervision whether 1 believes in it or not really (as in today’s patriotic movement), and that it really is supported by the “law. “

Interestingly, it can be here that one may note that, according to Weber, it is the level to which any kind of organization keeps power based upon the third category (that can be though useful bureaucracy), which the organization is in its most reliable state. As a result, from the maximum form of local government to the reduce realms of business, individuals in power assure organizational power and efficiency by simply avoiding anything smacking with the first two forms of power in favor of an official system of realistic and legal “rules. ” This is completed, according to Weber, simply by:

The business of a legal code could be established which can claim compliance from people of the business.

The execution of a approach to abstract guidelines which are put on particular cases; and government looks after the interests of the organization within the limits of this law.

The person(s) doing exercises authority as well obeys this impersonal order.

Only through being a member does the affiliate obey what the law states.

Obedience arrives not to the person who retains the power but to the impersonal purchase which has granted him this position.

According to Denhardt, one other figure tremendously responsible for the nature of organizational theory today was Karl Marx. Unlike Weber, Marxist believed focuses significantly on the mother nature of electric power in business not as that pertains to performance as a means through which financial control profit is manufactured – typically at the price of the staff member. Thus, instead of organizational control as a means by which efficiency is usually gained, fermage is the buy of the day. Hence, organized control is, relating to Marx, one of the essential causes of issue based on category stratification and alienation from the society in which they live.

Clearly, it is difficult for one to see the Marxist perspective reflected in Capitalistic societies, especially inside the United States. However , there will remain a powerful cultural trend to worth human fascination with regard to fairness, egalitarianism, and well-being. Even though this is mainly absent through the highest “powers-that-be, ” this tendency may at times state of mind the “bottom line” that could cause the alienation that Marx echoes of. Yet , there still remains a solid push toward the common definition of “efficiency” as associated with financial effectiveness rather than the productivity of egalitarian human pleasure and comfort and ease.

Finally, Denhardt also details how the work of Freud influences contemporary conceptions of organizational theory. Although couple of lay persons bring problems of electric power with regard to company authority to mind when they think of Freud, they actually often think of “unconscious icons. “

Further, due to these kinds of unconscious emblems, “… Each of us provides a representation, a “prototype” or perhaps “script” of the self, others, events. These kinds of scripts will be carried inside us plus they affect the way you react across situations… inches

Thus, inside an organizational framework – especially a construction of electricity (say, managerial), those scripts can affect the operation in the organization in positive or negative ways wholly independent of the “reality” from the situation.

So , too, in accordance to Freud’s theory, persons may react to those in power due to their internalized scripts (largely learned in childhood). This as well may be considerably removed from “reality” and may trigger unexpected or perhaps adverse effects for the efficiency of the organization (take, for example , a staff going “postal”). Additionally , different purely emotional phenomena also can affect the corporation. Take, by way of example obsessive addictive tendencies. Although may may well point to an especially “driven” worker or administrator as an example of shining productivity, that drive may be owing to a kind of emotional flaw instead of any genuine merit or drive based on genuine company need.

Naturally , the benefit of understanding just how Freud’s theories may impact company theory is based on its capacity to recognize potentially harmful personality traits (harmful with regards to the health of the organization). As a result, although it may appear on the surface to have an really driven “workaholic” type in charge of any given enterprise, this kind of a persona may actually have a negative organizational effect with regards to employees or other “subject” individuals. Ultimately the company efficiency might be jeopardized by simply these “narcissistic” or fanatical types.

Eventually Denhardt makes several interesting observations relating to organizational theory with regard to open public management in the United States. However , understanding some of the key sources of theory can help recognize the level to which the points espoused by Weber, Marx and