We chose to look at a military case that was exposed by the media last year in which Brigadier General (BG) James BG Botchie of the United States Air Force was accused of conduct that was unbecoming of an officer. By examining the roots of classical organizational theory as well as the systems theory approach to management, we will be able to see what aspects and principles should be better utilized and enforced in order to prevent such incidences from reoccurring.
Organizational Behavior Case Study Using
Classical Organization Theory and Systems Theory
In order to see where Brigadier General James Botchie’s management went wrong, we will use the classical organization theory and systems theory to evaluate his action and decisions. To provide support to our conclusion, Tommy will share a personal encounter he had with BG Botchie. Quotes from various texts will also offer support to our position that BG Botchie’s approach to management was not only ineffective, but also inappropriate for an officer in the United States Air Force. Classical Organization Theory
While some aspects of classical organizational theory can be considered out of date, it has been constantly progressing over the past century to better suit current workplace environments. From Taylor’s scientific management theory to Weber’s bureaucratic theory all the way to Mooney and Reiley’s administrative theory, classical organizational theory has developed some of the most fundamental principles to help better manage people in the workplace. In order to effectively understand how classical organization theory could help a situation, such as the one regarding Brigadier General James Botchie as reported by the Air Force Times, one must first look at the basic principles behind the theory.
One of the four central points in Frederick Taylor’s scientific management theory is to, “closely supervise workers, and use reward and punishment as motivators” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). In BG Botchie’s situation, he provided little to no supervision to his subordinates and was described as “hands-off, uninformed and at times uncaring” (Fontaine 2). This lack of supervision caused the military equal opportunity office (MEO) to be an unorganized and nonproductive environment that allowed discrimination and intimidation to go undisciplined and undocumented in many cases. Another “Taylorism” stated that “the task of management is planning and control” (Walonick, 1993). From what the Air Force Times showed, BG Botchie did not follow either of these guidelines. Military organizations require all parties to abide by strict codes of conduct in order to function as a well-oiled machine. BG Botchie’s actions not only reflect poorly on his work ethics, but also his moral ethics. He did not act as is expected of a United States serviceman; “…Personnel are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the highest standards of personal and professional integrity and ethics. At a minimum, all personnel shall comply with directives issued by the Secretary of Defense… regarding the Standards of Conduct and Government Ethics.” (Dalton, 1997). Much like the rank levels involved in military organizations, Max Weber’s bureaucratic theory “emphasized the need for a hierarchical structure of power” (Walonick, 1993). In order to continue maintaining control among soldiers or workers alike, there is a need for definite rules and a “clear line of authority and control” (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2009). BG Botchie allowed this line to become blurred when he developed friendships with his subordinates. Not only did this lead to unprofessional conduct in the form of creating an inner “boys only” clique that harassed female coworkers, it also raised an ethical dilemma in that BG Botchie engaged in business deals with subordinates and possibly used government resources to further his profits (Fontaine 4). There is a reason for positions of authority and that is to...