Organizations as Systems

Abstract

From the 1930s onward, three different models of management competed for precedence in organization theory—the traditional approach, human relations theory, and systems theory (Kast and Rosenzweig, 1981). The traditional approach was based upon Taylor’s scientific management, Fayol’s administrative management theory, and Weber’s bureaucracy theory, and encouraged the view that organizations were like machines. This view was considered briefly in the last chapter; it has been subject to criticism from many commentators. Human relations theory grew out of the critique of the traditional approach, particularly its alleged failure to take account of human needs. Theorists such as Mayo, Maslow, Herzberg, and McGregor studied and drew conclusions about issues such as group behavior, individual motivation, and leadership. While it was a useful corrective to traditional theory to put humans and their needs at the center of organizational analysis, this could easily lead to the neglect of factors such as the market, technology, competition, and organizational structure; factors that, it is arguable, have far more effect on organizational performance than decisions on how to manage people. Organizations have to take account of human needs, but not at the expense of everything else (Perrow, 1972).