Modern Organizational Theory Vs. Improvisation Essays -

Modern Organizational Theory Vs. Improvisation Modern Organizational Theory vs. Improvisation Organization theory deals with the formal structure, internal working, and external environment of complex human behavior within organizations. As a field spanning several disciplines, it prescribes how work and workers out to be organized and attempts to explain the actual consequences of organizational behavior (including individual behavior) on work done and on the organization itself.(Gordon and Milkavoich, 147) It has been evolving for centuries on how should work be done in the public administration and how the organization should be. Research findings have emerged about what motivates workers and how different incentives affect various tasks, employees, and situations; and the environments in which they operate. (Gordon and Milakovich, 147) Even with all those research statistics and different modes of thought toward organization there are still situations in which the rational approach to public decisions does not help. For instance, what if the environment is instable and ha s no guidelines or precedents to follow? In the case of Israel, improvisation has changed the organization of public administrations, uprooted the conventional models for policymaking, and strayed off from the Weberian model of administration. This kind of improvisation is the product of cultural and personal predilections and environmental circumstances,(Sharkansky and Zalmanovitch, 1) The use of improvisation is dependent on the culture and the environment in which policy decisions are made. For example, the use of improvisation is found more so in Spanish managers. Why? Spanish mangers express an explicit preference for spontaneous, improvised managerial style over the methodical and formal planning favored by their American, English, and Dutch counterparts. (Sharkansky and Zalmanovitch, 2) Another proponent of improvisational technique is the Israelis. Improvisation is made inevitable in a situation where problems must be dealt with expediently and on the spur of the moment. Taking into consideration the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis, improvisation is essential to running administrations. The formal theory such of Max Weber cannot apply since its framework of rules and procedures are to ensure stability, predictability, and reliability of performance; yet, with no stability or predictability in the environment these theories only fall short of thei r expectations. Rational panning has already been pointed out a century ago by Herbert Simon (1976) to be bounded by many factors such as: skills, habits, and reflexes, values, etc, which makes it impossible to achieve rational planning that is suited for the situationMoreover, rational planning does not have primary value in Israels cultural heritage. Survival in the Diaspora often depended on an ability to act quickly, with limited resources, under harsh, changing, and uncertain conditions.(Sharkansky and Zalmanovitch, 2) With endless terrorism, continuous war, and a population growth that shifts from month to month there is the perpetual challenge to respond to each situation expediently and ingeniously. Even with the scientific management organizational theory, the formal structure and rules, the highly centralized top management levels, and especially the standardizing procedures would make policy-making decisions disastrous for Israel. This mode of organization is to increase productivity, thus profits. Yet, Israels leadership has to consistently accomplish a wide variety of expensive goals with limited means. These goals included creating the infrastructure of a modem, industrial society in an undeveloped setting; creating a welfare state which could house, educate, and provide employment and healthcare for successive waves of immigrants and their children; and provide its citizens with a decent standard of living. (Sharkansky and Zalmanovitch, 3) With all of these pressures to be done on an econ omy of scarcity, the profit idea fits nowhere. Improvisation began in Israel since 1967, the day the city was united under total Israeli control. It involved deviating Israels formal policy to keep the peace. With the Arabs fighting for their land back and Israels strong willed notion to maintain all of the land under Israeli rule, it proved to be quite a task. Not only did the government had to improvise to ease the tension between the Arabs and the Israelis, they also had to settle the demands of the Religious and the Secular people. To maintain a harmonious environment the public decision makers had to improvise a way to keep the religious and secular Jews on the same level, whereby initiating one approach