Foundation of Management for German Republic -myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theFoundation of Management for German Democratic Republic. Answer: Bendix defines managerial ideology in the context of industrial development in various countries such as Russia, the United States, England, as well as the German Democratic Republic in the 18th and 19th centuries. The term incorporated industry bureaucratization and other significant ideological disparities which conflict in regard to managerial use between East and West. Moreover, the phase was justified through the subordination of a large group of persons, employees authority, and disciplinary challenges (Berry, Coad, Harris, Otley, and Stringer, 2009 p.10). The term managerial ideology is based on a selfish interest as the bureaucrats focus on gaining monetary advantages. Conversely, it is associated with labor exploitation and dominance creation. Morgans (1986) metaphors are closely associated with managerial ideology. These metaphors include metaphors of the organism, brain, culture, organization, political system, psychic prison, machines, and instrument of flux, domination, and transformation (Birkinshaw, Hamel and Mol, 2008 p.823). The metaphor of instrument of domination is closely connected to managerial ideology as exploitation instrument and power are featured amongst individuals in the organization. Morgan (1986) discussed metaphor as associations fulfilling their wishes including labor exploitation, environmental challenge, and others. Managerial ideologies have been featured in the formal subordination since industrialization began, and also, is related to high human factor production (Cornelissen and Kafouros, 2008 p.368). This factor relates to Marxian theory and is recommended for managers to achieve organizational productivity as well as labor activities. In the past, organizations were seen as control systems. Later, there was an increase and development of factory systems which resulted in scientific concepts based on managerial ideologies. In reviewing the organizational theory field, the rational bureaucratic organization is a significant dimension. This concept has been obtained from Morgans machine which entails organization of metaphor. The dimension initiates an association in the organization similarly to a mechanical device (Gambino, 2007 p.43). Rational bureaucratic organization technique outlines a structural alignment and an administrative act as a way for attaining the expected goals as well as objectives in an institution. Max Weber described bureaucracy in the context of formalization, instrumentation, as well as legal-rational authority. Max and Weber discussed bureaucracy as an instrument used to oppress and exploit people. Merton, Selznick, Gouldner, and Blau contribute to the discussion of the bureaucratic organization in the organization analysis. Rational bureaucracy impacts the management as well as an administrative practice where differentiation, the hierarchy of command, specialization and formal institutional principles are followed. Robert Merton (1957) was negative when selecting challenges which are associated with the concept of rational bureaucracy. He views bureaucratic personality as a normative relation in regard to the formal regulations and rules that bureaucratic institutions adopt resulting to a stiff bureaucratic personality obsessed with conformity. Additionally, the bureaucratic personality stresses on unconditional and unnecessary compliance to rules and measures without reviewing how to achieve organizational goals effectively (Neo, 2011 p.10). Individual personality, as well as abilities, is impacted through bureaucratic procedures to attain goals. However, rational bureaucratic institutions focus on significant organizational goals or the intermediate goals (Reed, 2006 p.19). Conversely, institutional paradox uncovers that rigid and strict compliance to formal techniques may influence displacement of goals as well as undermine the goals. Based on the theory of human relations and strategies, there is a significant relationship which is developing between organizational structures and human response. Researchers such as Hawthorne commented on the human perspective of an organization. Other theories proposed by Chester Barnard viewed human factors as central of an institution and stated that complex organizational problems are solved based on the members interests since they have to relate to the organizational objectives. Therefore, Barnard recognized common moral purpose as a good way of achieving organizational goals and objectives. Later, Barnard incorporated the concept of an organization which covers the managerial ideologies. In this part, Bernard proposed that to proceed with a sustainable cooperation between members and organization, it was important if the intrinsic rewards were included. That is a common scenario as organizations use incentives to achieve members contributions to achieve organizational goals (Turi, Mocan, Ivascu, Goncalves and Maistor, 2015 p.26). However, the shift from Barnard proposition of incentives is seen as a contradiction. These incentives issued in the organizations serve as motivations for members to work closely to arrive at institutional objectives (Nonaka, Kodama, Hirose and Kohlbacher, 2014 p.140). Based on the scientific researchers, economic humans are seen to acquire motivation through incentives while human relations focus on the needs of the society (Gawer and Phillips, 2013 p.1038). Therefore, human relations involve the social associations, communications, and theories of human associations which attributes to institutional leadership. The realization of new forms of institutions that focus on achieving the transformation to match the needs which relate to the marketing of new organizational concepts is evident. In the current organizations, many want to obtain economies of scale and the scope has emerged. Therefore, organizations must exercise flexibility regardless of specialization. Economies of scale are associated with low costs of producing goods and services in the organization. On the other hand, economies of scope are viewed as the competitive advantage enjoyed by a company due to certain products and services for a specific market niche. Therefore, the organizational philosophers utilize the model of Fordist industrial to feature on the managing as well as organizing abilities of a company to portray the emerging organizational forms. However, in comparing the Fordist standards to the new companies they differ in the context of the division of labor or even jobs standardization (Sturdy, Wright and Wylie, 2016 p.200). Clearly, the older organizational forms do not cope in a dynamic or changing market and economy in reference to economies of scale and scope. Therefore, organizations need to adopt flexibility, and also due to economies of scope they should design their products and services so that they can appeal to specific segments (Williams and Mengistu, 2015 p.13). It is important if organizations focus on building the competitive advantage in a particular segment for maximum organization of resources as well as efficiency in the management of workload to cater for other segments. In the case of economies of scale, companies require manufacturing in large quantities to achieve substantial costs as well as organizing the productions and management costs (ONeil, 2015 p.1630). This is because the production and management costs may impact the organizational productivity if they are ignored. In reviewing the post-Fordist technique, the transition is evident based on organizational tra nsformations which include hybrid structures. Bibliography Berry, A.J., Coad, A.F., Harris, E.P., Otley, D.T. and Stringer, C., 2009. Emerging themes in management control: A review of recent literature. The British Accounting Review, 41(1), pp.2-20. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., and Mol, M.J., 2008. Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), pp.825-845. Cornelissen, J.P., and Kafouros, M., 2008. Metaphors and theory building in organization theory: what determines the impact of a metaphor on theory?. British Journal of Management, 19(4), pp.365-379. Gambino, F., 2007. A Critique of the Fordism of the Regulation School. The Commoner, 12, pp.39-62. Gawer, A. and Phillips, N., 2013. Institutional work as logics shifts: The case of Intels transformation to platform leader. Organization Studies, 34(8), pp.1035-1071. Neo, E., 2011. Human Resource Management: Gaining Competitive Advantage, McGraw-Hill. Boston, USA. Nonaka, I., Kodama, M., Hirose, A. and Kohlbacher, F., 2014. Dynamic fractal organizations for promoting knowledge-based transformationA new paradigm for organizational theory. European Management Journal, 32(1), pp.137-146. ONeil, M., 2015. Labour out of Control: The political economy of capitalist and ethical organizations. Organization Studies, 36(12), pp.1627-1647. Reed, M., 2006. 1.1 Organizational theorizing: A historically contested terrain. The Sage handbook of organization studies, p.19. Sturdy, A., Wright, C. and Wylie, N., 2016. Managers as consultants: The hybridity and tensions of neo-bureaucratic management. The organization, 23(2), pp.184-205. Turi, A., Mocan, M., Ivascu, L., Goncalves, G. and Maistor, S., 2015, May. From Fordism to Lean management: Main shifts in automotive industry evolution within the last century. In MakeLearn International Scientific Conference on Management of Knowledge and Learning (pp. 25-27). Williams, A.P. and Mengistu, B., 2015. An exploration of the limitations of bureaucratic organizations in implementing contemporary peacebuilding. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), pp.3-28.