Organisation Theory

Introduction A number of people whose activities have been set, coordinated and led by their members in order to the attainment of specific objectives or goals is used as defining an organization (Schein 1970). “Theory means here logic and metaphysics” (Timo and Gasparski, 1993, p.3). Different people may have different views on the operations within the organization. Therefore, organization theory is invented and influences what goes on in the organization. Moreover, from the organization theory, it shows variety of perspectives that organization theorists use to study the phenomenon of interest (McAuley, Duberly and Johnson 2007)¹. In the organization theory, there are four different types of multi-perspective which are Modernism, Critical Theory, Symbolic Interpretive and Postmodernism. Thus, this essay will explain about Modernism and Critical Theory out of the four perspectives.
Framework
In understanding the nature of modernist organization theory, Michael Reed introduced two different metatheoretical terms which are ontology and epistemology (Reed, 1992). The modernist ontology is objectivism and the reality can be observes under see, touch, taste, hear and smell. For an instance, individual and organizations can be rational and structured based on people’s knowledge of it. Next, the modernist epistemology is positivism that the knowledge is discovered through the scientific measurements and test. In the theoretical way, modernist organizational theory emphasizes on how to create a rational, stable and effective organization as ways of controlling to overcome problems under the ever-changing world (Hatch and Cunliffe 2006)¹. It’s all about the “truths” which govern the organizations. The “truths” can be power or rules within the organization and employees. For example, in order to assist the organization, employees may establish strategies on how to increase the firms to be more productive and efficient with the limited power. For the management sector, managers may gain more power position in the organization. Thus, they take control of the organization, predict the consequences and find out more about one’s power. However, this “truth” might be good or bad and it depends.
Applying methodological ways on the organization, from the collection of empirical data, it will enable employers or employees to make decisions in the ration way. General Systems Theory was influenced by Emile Durkheim’s Structural Functionalism. Modernist organization theory explores the organization as a system to see how different fields of the organization interconnect with each other. It consists of four different sub-systems which are technology, culture, social structure and physical structure that exist within and respond to a supersystem, environment (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006)².
Critical Theory’s ontology is pretty similar to the modernist theory as it is objectivist and the reality is independent on the knowledge of it. By contrast, the epistemology is subjectivist as they think that everything will only exist if experience it or seeking the meaning of it. Comparing to the “truths” which mentioned earlier, people use their intellectual and emotional resources as a tool to indentify and “unmask” the “truths” of social or organization. Further, the methodological critical theory can be defined as the analysis on the observation and interpretation. It is how to make improvement or changes based on the historical data or discourse analysis on personal view. Capitalism has shown that “owner” of the business industry gains more power and those who work for them become alienated and exploited (Lowry 2007). The “owner” has taken away the authority of the workers and creates the inequality inside the organization.
Advantage and Disadvantage The advantage of a multi-perspective approach is The disadvantage of a multi-perspective approach is the high level of diversity within the society sciences. In this era right now, the field of organization theory is still relatively new and people see it as still unstructured. It is because there are no universally agreed upon these perspectives. Among the four multi perspectives, each approaches supports different focus on the organizations. It faces challenges which there are area of conflict and elements of overlap between the various perspectives. For an example, both modernism and critical theory have the same objectivist on the ontology but different ways on the epistemology. Critical theory is subjectivist in epistemology but modernist remains objectivist. From the figure below, Burrell and Morgan has introduced a framework which generates theories and perspectives to understand the organizations. The Sociology of Radical Change Radical Radical Humanist Structuralist
Subjective Objective Interpretive Functionalist

The Sociology of Regulation
Figure 3.1 Four paradigms for the analysis of social theory (Burrell and Morgan 1979)
It was argued that it is incompatible to use two paradigms and there is only one paradigm can be exist. Therefore, it is the same as adopting one paradigm on understanding organizations, the other paradigm cannot be used in the same time. The horizontal axis shows the opposite way between objective and subjective. Objectivist assumes that reality can be pictured by observation. This focus on the observable behavior and develop the law of behavior to explain the reason why the people behave on the way they do within the organization. By contrast, subjectivist assumes that the reality has no objective means as it focuses more on how people make sense of the situation. There are two mutually exclusive between the radical sociology of radical change and sociology of regulation. Under the sociology of radical change, Burrell and Morgan assume that society is puzzled with the conflicts, exploitation and etc (McAuley, Duberley and Johnson 2007)². It will concern to change and freeing people from the society. On the other hand, sociology of regulation assumes that the social and organization are in equilibrium, cohesive and consensus without the different interests between different groups. For an instance, conflict is treated as a temporary irregular factor. It is necessary to adapt to change the circumstances once it happens. As mentioned earlier on, the difference of modernism and critical theory on ontology and epistemology has shown that each perspective has some unique characteristics but also there are some elements of overlap. The combination of four perspectives approach is impossible as they can be viewed under different angle. One perspective approach might be possible overtime but it is still considered mutually exclusive when two perspectives or more combine together.
Conclusion