Structure as patterns of relations. Structures are applicable to people in how a society is as a system organized by a characteristic pattern of relationships. Power as influence over those relations. The structure of any organization, seen in this way, will partly be the outcome of the efforts of managers and other organizational designers to structure tasks, activities and establish a controlling hierarchy of command (Watson, 2008). A sharp distinction should be made between the formal structure of an organization and its actual day-to-day work activities. Formal structure is a blueprint for activities which includes, first of all, the table of organization: a listing of offices, departments, positions, and programs (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Formal power is bureaucracy and informal power is like charismatic power. Weber’s (1978) Concept of power is the probability that one actor in a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his (sic) will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.
Legitimate power is based on structural relationships between individuals and groups which develop over time or in response to valued attributes.
Post bureaucracy is decentralization empowerment of employees de-differentialisation (upskilling) democratized decision making participatory technologies high trust (Alvesson & Thompson, 2005) Pre-bureaucratic (entrepreneurial) structures lack standardization of tasks. This structure is most common in smaller organizations and is best used to solve simple tasks. The structure is totally centralized. The strategic leader makes all key decisions and most communication is done by one on one conversations. It is particularly useful for new (entrepreneurial) business as it enables the founder to control growth and development. They are usually based on traditional domination or charismatic domination in the sense of Max Weber's tripartite classification of authority. Weber’s Starting point is authority. Authority gives those who have the right or legitimacy to give orders. The claims to legitimacy of authority come from three different sources, as follows. Legal authority is based on rational grounds- that is, a belief in the rules and rights of those in authority to issue commands. Example: The legal authority invested in judges, juries et cetera, or the rational authority invested in superiors ( such as managers, CEOs) based on formal regulations. Traditional authority is based on traditional grounds-that is, the sanctity or sacredness of tradition and legitimacy status. Example: patriarchy, religious authority, inherited authority. Charismatic authority is based on charismatic grounds-that is, a devotion to the sanctity, heroism, or characteristic of ana individual. Example: influential leaders, celebrities, cults, even management ‘gurus’.
The four paradigms by Burrell and Morgan (1979).
Functionalist Paradigm (objective-regulation)
This has been the primary paradigm for organizational study. It assumes rational human action and believes one can understand organizational behavior through hypothesis testing. Interpretive Paradigm (subjective-regulation)
This paradigm "seeks to explain the stability of behavior from the individual's viewpoint". Researchers in this paradigm try to observe "on-going processes" to better understand individual behavior and the "spiritual nature of the world". Radical Humanist Paradigm (subjective-radical change)
Theorists in this paradigm are mainly concerned with releasing social constraints that limit human potential. They see the current dominant ideologies as separating people from their "true selves". They use this paradigm to justify desire for revolutionary change. It's largely anti-organization in scope. Radical Structuralist Paradigm (objective-radical change)
Based on this paradigm, theorists see inherent structural conflicts within society that generate constant change through political and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document