Making Organizational Theory Work
Organizational models form the basis for decision making and problem-solving in business management. The success and realization of business operations are essentially tied to the management quality of the organization. The ease, productivity, and effectiveness of a business function depend on structural organization components of various echelons, such as top-managing staffs, owners, administrators, and workforces. Several concepts have been postulated throughout history that endeavored to theorize the nature of an organization and its business relations. These theories demonstrate the essential role the models would profit organizations in adopting a better understanding of work and occupations.
In the article, the author affirms that organizational hypothesizing is essential in enabling leaders to have an informed understanding of work and occupations. Different scholarly works have been employed in analyzing populated establishments, occupations as institutions, and occupations as negotiated orders (Bechky, 2011). Bechkey has explored the hypothetical and procedural impacts of these methods to demonstrate how they defy some of our more abstract perceptions of organizations.
Analyzing the empirical studies of inhabited institutions and occupations institutions and negotiated orders ascertain that the determination and eagerness for establishing models of entities grounded in the study of occupations and work exist. Consequently, individuals need to be motived and guided from these efforts as they have indicated that although theorizing is not easy, it is rewarding (Bechky, 2011). By emphasizing on the description and understanding, work-related affiliation, and professional practices, researchers in this field have provided fresh outlooks that respond to conjectural challenges in understanding transformation and constancy, structural development and relations between organizations and activities.
According to Bechchy (2011), whereas numerous structural organizations researchers already use the discernment of this model as a base for their hypothetical opinions in regards to organizational functions, some are reluctant to get into the organizations. Consequently, these explorations are essential in providing crucial information regarding change and stability by demonstrating to us how the procedures are entrenched in what ensues in the workplace. Alterations to organizational grounds, though swayed by work-related actions, are enacted in organizations and recognized as institutionally detectible jurisdictions. For example, the change of roles allow institutional transformation, and it is through employees’ understanding of their place of work and their co-workers’ interpretations that make them take action to make the changes conventional (Reay et al. 2006). Therefore, the author argues that change and stability are both ingrained in the collaboration order, which draws on, upholds, and challenges social constructions.
According to the article, being accustomed to change is also essential for coming up with proven theories. For example, assessing organizations inhabitants exposes the confused subtleties underlying any presence of field-level traditional values. Conventionality is established in several ways through resolute workplace action. Therefore, generating institutional conformism implies fighting not only with practical workplace certainties but also with employees’ acuities and rigidities. Justifications of transformation that do not reconnoiter these workplace values and applies at all levels of a firm risk missing essential hypothetical mechanisms.
I support the fact that organizational model can be improved by a determination to candidly and earnestly integrate the workplace in our evaluation of organizations, institutions, and occupational systems. Consequently, we need to keep in mind the internal composition of organizations as an essential place for understanding institutional- and field-level changing aspects. The in-house structure of entities is where the action happens between individuals, and the discrepancy in meanings and practices within establishments offers the essential ground for hypothesizing. These hypothetical aspects also entail definite organizational options that will help researchers to develop significant abstract connections.
Bechky, B. A. (2011). Making organizational theory work: Institutions, occupations, and negotiated orders. Organization Science, 22(5), 1157-1167.
Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & Germann, K. (2006). Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and microprocesses of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 977-998.