EVOLUTION OF ORGANIZATIONAL THOUGHT: A LOOK FROM CLASSICAL ORGANIZATION THEORIES TO POST -BUREAUCRATIC AND POST - MODERN THEORIES1

INTRODUCTION

Organizational theory is responsible for making studies of organizational designs and structures, performing a comparative analysis of classical theory, where issues such as: the description of the nature, origin, functions and processes will be taken into account. For this reason, this work will focus on the theories that exist regarding the organization, the evolution and development that administrative thought has had and the current concept that defines organizations.

In the first place, an analysis of the organization as a social system is presented, which allows knowing the different edges of the organization’s development and the relationships that are made up within it, among others. Second, a reasoned journey is made from the main contributions of classical theory, passing through approaches such as ecological theory that tend to adapt to the environment and operate efficiently, as well as the new institutionalism, which reflects the rise of modern theories in the study of the phenomenological within the organization. Finally, the view of post- bureaucratic and post-modern organizations is proposed, these are striking for the study of power, culture and strategic analysis as a sample of the complexity that stands out from organizations.

The organization as a social system

To start talking about organization, the example given by Valdés (2010) is taken, in which he mentions the way in which since childhood human beings are part of organizations such as the school, the community, sports or cultural teams, among many others. In this sense, and to know how organizations have developed over time, it is important to carry out studies of their characteristics, types, evolution and principles, since they are formally constituted and serve society.

It is essential to recognize how the organization is conceived, and as stated by De la Rosa (2002) “organizations and institutions are essential components of modern society, and understanding the ways in which they are related is interesting for knowledge of the social, the human and the organizational” (p. 16).

In order to enter in a structured way into the subject of organizations, it is necessary to mention those historical trends that are related to administrative aspects, which are directly related to organizational design, and how the activities and design of job positions take place. work (Valdes, 2010).

Considering what was mentioned by Valdés (2010), it is necessary to take into account that the theories and schools that have been studied are not exclusive of each other, what changes is that some have relied more on others in practice, while others have changed the form and in other cases its content.

CLASSICAL THEORIES

Scientific theory: “the best form of organization is the one that takes into account individual effort”.

At the beginning of the 20th century, scientific administration has its genesis, through which reflection on the problems of organizational efficiency is given, in order to generate transformations in the production processes, due to the conditions of activity that the workers had. , actions related to natural laziness, systematic laziness, and the way work was carried out, were triggers for the scientific study and regularization of worker activity through the systematization of times, periods and measurement of work processes, of hence, we currently have essential contributions in the field and the study of organizations. Taylor stated that “the main objective of the administration must be to ensure maximum prosperity, both for the employer and for the employee” (Taylor, 1983 cited by Portilla et al., 2007, p. 312). As mentioned by Erra (2020), where for the employer, organizational prosperity is not related to the maximum economic benefit, but rather the development of all levels of the company, in contrast to what the employee thinks as the maximum benefit. it is not represented in a very high salary, but rather the possibility of growth and personal development in the medium and long term.

The foregoing is based on four relevant principles: managerial responsibility in work planning, employee training, job reformulation, and performance-based pay. These principles made it possible to reduce the power associated with the job, overthrowing the employee’s control over the work process and operating modes, allowing the tabulation of activities, eliminating unnecessary movements, seeking capacity and speed, hence the work could be reformulated. considering the accounting or time clock and the assembly line, in this regard Erra (2020) mentions that Taylor postulated that his method has applicability to all types of human activity, avoiding unemployment and increasing the remuneration and professional career development of the employees.

Finally, scientific management is where the Theory of the Organization (Ibarra & Montaño, 1986) is born, and the postulates of human relations, having as object of study the large industrial company. In this sense, the Organizational Theory (OT) is a response for the modern company, in which there are precepts of more demanding problems and committed to the physiological and environmental emphasis of human relations.

Functional theory: “The best form of organization is based on a distribution of functions, which is subdivided into sub-functions and procedures, which in turn are developed by one or more positions” (Rivas, 2009, p. 14).

Fayol (1916) in his work Industrial and General Administration published in 1916, mentions that the study is carried out from a global approach to the business organization, which begins from the conception of the organization as a structure, and displaces the analytical speed that was exposed by Taylor. In this sense, Fayol proposes a critical evaluation by considering a simple approach, with the maximum efficiency of the organization, lack of work with experimentation, maximum rationalism, organization with a mechanical approach, absence of a holistic vision of the organization, finally seeing the organization as a closed system without predictable variables.

• Fayol defines managing according to the following characteristics:

• Plan: see the future and propose concrete actions.

• Organize: establish the formal and social structure of the business organization.

• Lead /Command: art of leading staff to achieve goals.

• Coordinate: chain actions for maximum efficiency.

• Control: ensure compliance with what is established in accordance with the instructions given (Klinger, 2012).

The former take shape from what is configured at the highest hierarchical levels in organizations, and thus move to the lowest levels. “For Fayol, administration is a set of processes of which the organization is one of the parts, it is static and limited since it refers to structure and form” (Klinger, 2012, p. 9). This is how Fayol (1916) recognizes the following principles that support management in the organization, namely:

1. Division of labor: improves efficiency through reduced waste, increased results, and simplified job training.

2. Authority and Responsibility: authority is the right to give orders to others and the power to have others obey. Responsibility is the obligation to fulfill assigned tasks or duties.

3. Discipline: respect for the rules that govern the organization.

4. Unity of command: an employee must receive orders from a superior only.

5. Direction unit: group similar tasks that are directed with a particular objective by a single manager.

6. Subordination of individual interests to the general interest: the interests of individuals and groups must not come before the interests of the organization as a whole.

7. Staff remuneration: payment must be fair and satisfactory to employees.

8. Centralization: managers retain ultimate responsibility, while subordinates retain sufficient responsibility to achieve their goals.

9. Chain of Command: the chain of command runs from the highest authority to the lowest.

10. Order: people and supplies must be in the right place at the right time.

11. Fairness: managers must treat employees fairly and fairly.

12. Staff Role Stability: management practices that encourage long-term employee commitment create a stable workforce and thus a successful organization.

13. Initiative: employees should be encouraged to develop and carry out improvement programs.

14. Esprit de corps: managers must foster and maintain teamwork, team spirit, and a sense of unity among employees (LRH, 2020).

Fayol’s theory is correct for organizations and to this day it is implemented in some of them that are governed by these principles. We can bring the Fayolist theory closer to the concepts defined by Deming of total quality and the PHVA cycle, which seeks planning and control in order to give the best to the customer through good management during the processes, from the raw material to the final product and a constant continuous improvement of the processes, this favors quality standards in what is delivered to its clients, and also favors an important factor that is the human being, who is the one who carries out the activity and who receives the Final product.

Systems of power: the passage through the theories of the bureaucracy as an organization in its structure of domination.

Upon hearing the term bureaucracy, probably any ordinary person would assimilate it as something negative and with inefficient components, but for Weber (1992), bureaucracy governs different aspects within domination, such as hierarchy and official powers, which conclude with an administration modern, where the performance of the charges is carried out in accordance with a previously established statute.

Domination is a state by which a manifest will of the dominator influences the acts of others, which reflects rational legal domination, where the individual obeys because the mandates give him some perception of a sense of duty and this mandate in turn it seems rational because it complies with norms or rules. Now, it is important to highlight how these canons enter the organization from the implementation of a system of rules and regulations, under a hierarchical system, the strict adherence to the rules through standardized behaviors , which results in the predictability of the behavior.

From another point of view, we find Mouzelis (1975) who contributes to Weber’s theory, clarifying the approach as an ideal and that it could only be efficient from an abstract view, without possibilities of verification through research and rather, as bureaucratic model from the figure of the organization, away from reality and the rational environment. Not only Mouzelis complemented the overview of Weber’s theory, we also find Merton (2002), who focuses his analysis between the difference between the ideal and the real, based on functions, latent functions and dysfunctions. The latter sustains that any company or organization that is guided by the bureaucratic principles of the ideal type may face internal and external inconveniences, such as vicious circles, depersonalization of the needs of clients due to treatment under the same standard, trained incapacity, among others. others.

Finally, all the dysfunctions allowed drawing conclusions and advances in the organizational analysis, allowing Crozier (1974) to affirm, through a study on the tobacco monopoly, that an organization makes corrections based on its errors, that is, an organization it is constantly trapped in a chain of stable and continuous repetitions.

The human in factories: human relations as a school or a socio-technical system.

Since the birth of the theory of human relations in the 20th century, some elements enter as support and guide for the analysis of the human side in organizations and their management, whenever the importance of the practice of “motivation, leadership, communication, informal organization, group dynamics, etc., and old classical concepts of authority, hierarchy, work rationalization, departmentalization, general administration principles are criticized” (Chiavenato, 1990, p. 141).

Among the main authors of the Theory of Human Relations is Elton Mayo, as a reference, where he and other authors give way and support to the Hawthorne Experiment “in conjunction with the ideas from psychology and sociology, which allowed to establish their postulates from rewards and sanctions, groups, integration and behavior from social and emotional aspects, among others (Ramos & Triana, 2007; Mayo & Bagú, 1972).

One cannot fail to mention the contribution of Mary Parket Follet, who stood out in his various works for his contributions to administration, human relations, and the social aspects of the organization. “Likewise, the importance of coordinating group efforts in the efficient fulfillment of a task is at work. The task of an administrator, according to Follet, is to discover the motivations of individuals and groups” (Rivas, 2009, p. 15).

Unquestionably, the recognition of the human being as a thinking being of speech and listening is one of the main contributions in human relations; Likewise, making them feel that they were important motivated the functional vision of the worker in organizations.

The theory of human relations, in contrast to the postulates of classical theory, came to establish its legitimacy through the experiments called Hawthorne studies, through which different problems were identified from the human component in their performance in the organization (Jauregui, 2016). Additionally, thanks to this theory, a different view of the employee emerges, which has its focus on human aspects such as feelings, fears, desires and goals.

Cooperative systems theory:cooperation between members of the organization for mutual benefit

In this regard, the theoretician De la Garza (2003) Citing Barnard in his text The Functions of the Executive of 1938, he mentions the organization as a social system of cooperation, while social activities and interactions must be kept constant and in balance. Likewise, this aspect provides solid arguments on how an organizational model understands the organizational interests at a higher level than the individuals, and especially those of the individuals who interact, giving greater importance to the cooperative act between the members of the organization.

This is how Chester Barnard makes the transition between the theory of human relations towards a humanistic conception, where coordination within the organization is presumed as a pillar for obtaining optimal results, as well as the role played by the leader or the Managers are key in the conception of the organization.

On the other hand, in the theory of cooperative systems, aspects of formal and informal organization stand out; For the formal one, the relevance that refers to the objective of the organization is appreciated, in addition, the collaboration and help between the parties. In the informal, aspects such as affinity, communication are reflected, in addition to breaking with the thought that the organization has a certain and limited number of members, since other agents such as consumers, shareholders, among others, are incorporated.

This theory has had supporters and critics, for Galicia (2017), Barnard focuses his contribution away from critical positions such as those of different authors such as Marx, Weber and Kafka that he had the opportunity to meet; and Deleuze, Foucault, Habermas, Bourdieu, and Critical Management Studies (CMS), which he did not know. Their positions are within the dominant tradition of the administration, neglecting the elements of justice and freedom, additionally, there is talk of help and support for arrogant business speeches.

Political theory: the organization that creates relationships and manages conflict.

By defining the word “power”, we can talk about the ability to influence other people or departments to get what the person in power wants. This theory has some advantages over organizations, which allows “contemplating organizations as social constructions based on diverse interests and therefore susceptible to negotiation, it is a means to manage positively to overcome conflicts” (Rodríguez, 1992, p. 113); In addition, it helps to understand the conflicts and their functionality, the interests and where the power comes from to generate internal changes in the organizations, and allows its members to be recognized as political actors, to create alliances between interested groups, in an attempt to channel all forces to achieve the objectives of the organization.

Structure and environment: from the theory of contingency to the objectives of the organization.

It is necessary to affirm that, for the first time, the focus of study changes from the qualitative to the quantitative idea, the previous movements had based their studies from the analysis of phenomena, but this time they began to give structure to the organization and , therefore, an attempt was made to make it objective, through more specific and rational analyses, from which it is inferred that contingency is the maximum expression of OT Below, in figures 1 to 3, are the contributions of different authors to the Organization Theory:

Figure 1: J. Woodward approach.

Source: self made (2020).

Figure 2: Burns and Lawrence Approach, GM Stalker.

Source: self made (2020).

Figure 3: Approach of D. Pugh.

Source: self made (2020).

Decisions in the organization: from the theory of behavior and the organization as a decision-making system.

Decision making is defined as a tool to understand the behavior of the company. This current starts from the behavior of the individual, which will lead to recognizing the behavior of the organization. Following this, it can be affirmed that the contributions of Simon (1988) analyze organizations around how decisions are configured, which, in turn, influence behavior within it. In this sense, a certain decision implies a form of behavior and excludes the others, hence, decision making is like the foundation of the study of the school of behavior.

Another important contribution sheds light on what has been called programmed and non-programmed decisions, which have a direct influence on the behavior of individuals in the organizational environment. Simon (1988) recognized that the organization suppresses an important part of the employee’s autonomy to decide, replacing it with organizational forms for decision making, which shows that non-programmed decisions affect the organization from a general order and programmed decisions always they will be in all processes as systematic actions.

Another relevant point is found in the contributions of March James, who developed studies on organizational theory supported by the object of study of Hebert Simon , accompanying Richard Cyer . March (1994) formed a different notion about the implications of decision making in the organizational sphere, having a certain sense of reality and actions in organizations. In this order of ideas, March (1994) and Cyert & March (1963) contributed to clarify the aspects related to decision making as shown in figure 4:

Figure 4: Cyert and March approach.

Source: self made (2020).

MODERN THEORIES

The new institutionalism in organizational analysis

To start, it is necessary to establish the concept of institution in which Scott (2012) refers to structures of knowledge, regulations, and activities that provide support and stability to social behavior. Institutions are transmitted through cultural, structural and routine aspects that operate in multiple scenarios of jurisdiction. Considering the above, the cultural aspect is predominant for the development of the new institutionalism.

For De la Rosa (2002), the new institutionalism NI represents “a heterogeneous set of approaches that deal with the various relationships between institution and organization, and whose support is found in notions such as individual, actor, roles, identities, behaviors, rules, regulation, construction/constitution, environments, structures, rationality, costs, transactions, among the most outstanding” (p. 28). The NI has its origins in the social sciences, its main authors have been Powell & DiMaggio (1991), Goodin (1998), March & Olsen (1997), Meyer & Rowan (1977), Zucker (1999), Jepperson (2001), Williamson (1993), North (1993), and Scott (2012). Undoubtedly the contribution to Organizational Studies has been positive, there are contributions to the organizational field linked to isomorphism, change mechanisms such as mimetic, coercive, or normative. Finally, are the rationalized myths, environments and institutional frameworks that serve as determinants in the structures of organizations, among others.

Various schools related to the NI can be found, in a broad sense, the New Sociological Institutionalism NIS and the New Political Institutionalism NIP and, finally, the New Economic Institutionalism NIE are developed.

The New Economic Institutionalism represents limited rationality and that, over time, different contingencies may arise, to the extent that transaction costs rise (Williamson, 1993; North, 1993).

According to Arellano (2000), the new economic institutionalism is providing different points of view about the social sciences through new techniques and tools, from the educational “markets” or those that affect the macrosocial development of a country. However, various methodological, practical and analytical doubts have arisen on the stage and apparently the characteristics of said theory prevent it from having a critical view of what is happening.

From another point of view, the New Sociological Institutionalism is visualized, where a foundation of the institutional rules that affect the structures of the organizations and their performance is presented. And, finally, the contribution from the point of view of Powell & DiMaggio (1991) that refers to the three types of mechanisms of institutional change -coercive, mimetic, and normative-, which are relevant for the understanding of the structural forms and the ways in which organizational fields are formed.

According to Selznick (1949) the old institutionalism is centered on the organization, on norms, attitudes and values, and on the conflicts of interest that exist between what the organization seeks and the different groups. In the new institutionalism, both the normative and the cognitive stand out, taking the organizational field as the unit of study (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

Transaction cost theory: minimization of transaction costs in organizations.

From the 1980s there have been different contributions to what is known as organizational economics, in the 1990s Liebeskind , Zenger and Hesterly made contributions to the field of administration and organizations, however, these scopes are where evidence the Theory of the Cost of TCT Transactions, which, as stated by Jones (1987, cited by Salgado, 2003, p. 63), has the objective of identifying the sources of transaction costs and specifying the government mechanism that can help to regularize the transaction, in order to save costs.

In advancing the assumption of the cost of transactions, Williamson emerges, who, taking some authors and their contributions as a reference, proposes the TCT through which he confirms that the firm is a particular type of organization “that allows managing exchanges or transactions and, in this way, minimize their costs, unlike other types of organization, especially markets” (Salgado, 2003, p. 63). Thus, management structures are administrative units based on adaptability, control and coordination, but economic rationality determines the market or the industry.

These costs, although immaterial, make it possible to determine which are the elements that institutions use daily to create products and services, as well as how to contribute to the minimization of these elements in order to provide more profits to the institutions.

Resources and capabilities theory: the best form of organization is the one that most rationally manages its resources and capabilities

Resources and capabilities play a more important role every day in defining the identity of the organization. From the strategic analysis, Grant (1991) proposes a practical framework configured in five stages that support the notion of formulating strategies for the company. First, there is the identification of resources and the targeting of strengths and opportunities for improvement, the second stage lies in identifying the capabilities of the company, followed by this, the third stage is detailed in calculating the potential for a competitive advantage. Likewise, the selection of a comprehensive strategy for the company and its capacity is developed in the fourth point. Finally, identifying the needs to be covered plays a fundamental role in the last position. From this approach, conclusions can be drawn from what is currently found in some organizations, the way of proposing objectives focused on prevention and the use of resources and capacities, demonstrate progress and changes in the mentality of the management apparatus of organizations.

“The most serious problem with this theory is its denial of the effect of the organization’s environment” (Rivas, 2009, p. 21). It is a tool that allows determining the internal strengths and weaknesses of the organization (Rivas, 2009). According to this theory, developing distinctive capabilities is the only way to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. If the resources and capabilities that a company possesses allow it to exploit opportunities and neutralize threats, are possessed only by a small number of competing companies, and are costly to copy or difficult to obtain in the market, then they may constitute strengths of the company and thus, potential sources of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991 ; Carrión, 2021).

When companies identify their resources and capabilities in order to establish relative strengths against competitors, they can organize and adjust their strategy, with the aim of ensuring that these strengths are taken advantage of and weaknesses are protected (Navas & Guerras, 1998, p. 23).

Currently, organizations define the strategic direction and set short, medium and long-term goals, which help to define through their resources and capabilities if they can meet them; Organizations start from a mission and vision with strategic objectives and measurable indicators, develop administrative tools to identify the internal and external threats and weaknesses to which they are subjected, and these allow defining strategies that are selected and evaluated and that, when put into operation, allow define what the strengths and opportunities are, all this, in search of strengthening the control of the organization by learning the different administrative theories.

Theories of organizational ambiguity: elements for the study of unconventional organizational realities.

Cyert & March (1963) propose a behavioral theory of the organization where decision making prevails on more real bases and not on assumptions.

For this cycle, we find an aspect called school of behavior, which is based on a term for some, a bit strange called uncertainty; for March, the uncertainty exists, but this uncertainty will be reduced as the information unfolds. From there, the idea of an order arises, in which it is limited to the fact that there is a real world, which is known and understood in principle, but there will be a fundamental aspect that is limited rationality.

The basic concept that sums up the school is a logic of consequence that conjectures those goals are precise, actions are linked to anticipations of future effects, and preferences that support action. In concrete words, ambiguity, and uncertainty.

Organizational ambiguity theories propose concepts and ideas for the study of unconventional organizational realities, under cause-effect relationships, the structuring of delimited patterns, clarifying that they do not propose that organizations are irrational, but rather that they operate under other rationales of action. Therefore, the term Organized Anarchy appears, which refers to organizations that are not clear about their purposes, how they do it, and how directed the decisions are. We also find the Loosely Coupled System, through which the systems do not have variables that conjugate or interact with them ( Glassman , 1973).

Finally, a decision-making process of the Garbage Can Model type is presented as a metaphor, which implies a set of situations and decisions, among other aspects, given in the organization that involves a constant search for solutions, but in the end they are not evidenced. concrete decisions and neither any fulfillment of purposes, until certain moment decisions only come to be presented by conjuncture or by environmental situations.

POSTBUREAUCRATIC - POSTMODERN ORGANIZATIONS

Power in organizations.

The strategic and action systems.

When the study of power in organizations is presented, many postulates are found (Figure 5), diversity in related subtopics and relevance within organizations.

Figure 5: Postulates of power in organizations.

Source: self made (2020).

Studies of power in organizations have been addressed both empirically by Sainsaulieu et al. (1995), as theoretically by Clegg (1990), but the first approach does not rule out the theoretical elements (Table 1). Clegg et al. (1996) indicate perspectives, one of a critical nature (they equate power with structures with which interests are achieved) and the other functional (power is outside the formal and, to a certain extent, threatened with compliance).

Table 1: Analysis of the relevance of power in organizations.

Source: self made (2020).

Culture in organizations (the symbolic and its meaning)

Culture can be evidenced in organizations as an influence of the environment or the social environment, where values, beliefs, customs, among others, prevail. With this caveat, culture must be recognized as an internal and external variable. For a better explanation, it is necessary to understand organizational culture and cooperative culture; the first is constituted from each of those who are part of the organization, in terms of their customs, language and traditions. On the other hand, the corporate culture is founded from the direction of the company, through policies and philosophies shared by the head of the organization, in addition to its equal conception for all individuals.

From the analysis of organizational identity, contributions such as those of Albert & Whetten (1985) can be found, who propose three fundamental aspects prioritized from the central character as the essence of the organization, passing through the distinction represented by those differentiating characteristics and, finally, , temporal continuity, showing persistence and continuation through time. In conclusion, this current of study on culture in organizations refers to the willingness to understand the organization as a culture with symbols of identity and with characteristics of comparative studies of an ethnographic nature.

Conclusions

After having made a synthesis of the organizational theories, it can be affirmed that the different conceptual bases on which they were based differ greatly, which demonstrates a high degree of complexity for their analysis and understanding (Rivas, 2009). Likewise, the theory is a tool that allows interactions between the actors of the organization and its universality, insofar as it enables its application, regardless of aspects such as size, environment, and technology in the different organizational forms (Tite, 2020).

Likewise, it is necessary to conclude that all the thought and organizational development of the classical schools has been important for all the development that has occurred both in the administration and in the organizations. Classical theories and schools are the product of the needs that have arisen in the productive sectors of each era, such as: organization, productive activities, processes and interpersonal relationships. Unlike those of postmodern approaches, which have been based on knowledge and technology, to reconfigure the capabilities of employees and their human relations, developing important approaches that allow a greater provision of companies in matters of productivity and competitiveness due to the globalization of markets. Both theories are important, one depends on the other and according to the context of each organization, therefore, we cannot undermine the research that supports them, nor rule out any of them.