Chapter 5 – Management Theory Basics: Organizing
Management Theory Basics: Organizing
The Foundation of Organizational Success
Organizing – securing appropriate personnel and resources while creating an environment conducive to success – forms the essential counterpart to planning. Even the most brilliant strategy will fail without proper implementation through effective organizational structures and motivated personnel.
The organizing function requires management to establish internal configurations, develop and maintain relationships, and allocate necessary resources. While some organizations begin by creating formal hierarchical charts, others deliberately avoid rigid structures to enhance nimbleness. Regardless of approach, every effective organization requires a recognizable authority chain to function properly. During the Israelites’ desert journey, everyone understood that Moses occupied the highest management position beneath the Lord, whose public demonstrations cemented Moses’ authority.
Effective organizing encompasses identifying organizational needs, creating appropriate job descriptions, recruiting suitable personnel, and providing adequate training. When this process falters, management must adapt their organizational approach.
Beyond Training: Organizational Development
Hammer and Champy, in their work on reengineering, distinguish between training and education as organizational development approaches. Training increases skills and competencies by teaching employees how to perform specific tasks – like training a salesperson to use an order entry system. Education, by contrast, enhances insight and understanding—helping that same salesperson comprehend why accurate order entry matters and how they might improve the process for everyone involved (Hammer & Champy, 1993).
Moses exemplified this educational approach when developing Joshua as his successor. Rather than merely training Joshua in administrative procedures, Moses provided comprehensive development opportunities. Joshua first received military responsibility in organizing forces against Amalek, then participated in the reconnaissance mission as one of two spies delivering a positive report. Throughout this process, Joshua shadowed Moses, observing firsthand how his mentor received and implemented divine directives. This comprehensive development prepared Joshua so thoroughly that after he successfully settled the Promised Land, direct divine intervention decreased significantly – much as Joseph required less divine assistance after implementing his famine-prevention plan.
Breaking Organizational Silos
Many business units evolve into isolated silos where managers and employees resist sharing resources or information with other departments. This territorial mindset stems from competition for limited budgets and recognition, with units entrenchment against other organizational divisions. Self-interest – the fundamental principle of Game Theory – drives these decisions, as individuals typically prioritize personal benefit even when claiming to act for others’ good.
Organizations can counter this tendency through cross-training, temporary reassignments, and managerial rotations that foster cooperation and minimize internal conflict. Biblical examples demonstrate both successful and unsuccessful coordination. Various treaties between nations provided mutual protection during conflicts, but perhaps the most impressive coordination example was the desert journey itself – moving several million people in predetermined formations for forty years represents a remarkable coordination achievement.
Reorganization Challenges
Reorganizing or “reengineering” to improve performance presents significant challenges requiring both leadership and management skills. Success depends on organizational members recognizing the need for change and willingness to participate in transformation.
Hammer and Champy identify “paralysis by analysis” and bureaucratic command chains as initiative killers. Breaking these patterns requires decisive intervention. In biblical governance, this principle appears when disputes were brought directly to authorities like King Solomon with his famous baby judgment case. Similarly, though Moses established a judicial system with appointed judges, he continued personally addressing the most significant matters to prevent bureaucratic gridlock.
Organizational Culture
Collins and Porras observe that exceptional companies develop tightly bonded groups like fraternities or sororities, creating shared commitment to organizational objectives. This cohesiveness often involves some form of cultural indoctrination that fosters a “buy in or get out” mentality. Organizations achieving this unity typically better accomplish their objectives. The Israelites demonstrated this principle during their final desert years, displaying such unified purpose during the conquest of Canaan that divine intervention became less necessary after the battle of Jericho.
Effectiveness versus Efficiency
Peter Drucker, in his landmark work The Effective Executive, emphasizes the distinction between doing things right (efficiency) and doing the right things (effectiveness). He identifies wasted time as a critical organizational concern – whether through improper time allocation or unproductive activities like excessive internet browsing, which some studies suggest costs American businesses over two hours daily per computer-using employee. To enhance organizational effectiveness, Drucker recommends that employees at all levels regularly ask, “What can I contribute?” and direct their efforts accordingly.
Moses initially resisted this contributory mindset, attempting to avoid his leadership calling. Only after divine intervention at an inn on the way to Egypt did he fully commit to his responsibility. Joshua, conversely, built his career through demonstrated contribution – displaying military competence against Amalek, providing honest reconnaissance reports, and undergoing extensive practical training.
Developing Organizational Talent
Robert E. Kelley’s book How to be a Star at Work (1999) identifies how exceptional performers develop within organizations. Future organizational stars actively seek responsibilities beyond their job descriptions, accept calculated risks for advancement, and understand the distinction between formal organizational structures and actual influence patterns. These individuals demonstrate initiative in challenging areas, comprehend big-picture implications, develop followership, communicate effectively, and navigate organizational politics skillfully. Joshua exemplifies this development pattern through risk acceptance and initiative. Similarly, David’s early risk-taking likely contributed to his loyal following even before becoming king.
The Evolution of Organizational Theory
Scientific Management
Frederick Taylor’s pioneering work in 1911, published in Shop Management and Principles of Scientific Management, established systematic approaches to work organization. His scientific management principles included:
- Replacing traditional work methods with scientifically analyzed approaches
- Systematically selecting and training employees rather than permitting self-training
- Providing detailed supervision and instruction for task completion
- Dividing responsibility so managers planned work while workers executed tasks
Taylor’s objective, “increased output per unit of human effort,” reflected his belief that systematic analysis could:
- Minimize unexpected challenges
- Address technological complexity
- Reduce harmful decisions
- Develop organizational synergy
- Increase objective performance evaluation
Henri Fayol approached similar objectives from the opposite direction in 1916, examining management downward rather than workers upward. Fayol shifted attention from employee deficiencies to managerial inadequacies as business failure causes, noting that technical competence doesn’t guarantee managerial capability. His famous 14-point framework for business governance included technical, commercial, financial, accounting, and administrative functions, along with the classic managerial functions of organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling (Urwick & Brech, 1945).
Bureaucratic Systems
Max Weber proposed bureaucracy as the optimal organizational form, describing it as including (VectorStudy, 2008):
- Detailed job specifications with defined rights and responsibilities
- Clear supervision and subordination systems
- Unity of command
- Comprehensive documentation
- Thorough training for specialized positions
- Consistent rule application
- Merit-based hiring
While these elements seem commonplace today, they represented innovative organizational thinking in the early 20th century. Weber demonstrated how organizations could function rationally through bureaucratic principles and notably traced Western scientific rationality to biblical foundations (Sacks, 2005).
Despite their effectiveness for routine operations like assembly lines, bureaucratic systems often struggle in dynamic environments requiring rapid adaptation. Moreover, Weber’s critics noted that organizations comprise humans who inevitably violate rules, circumvent command chains, and behave unpredictably – as illustrated by humanity’s earliest biblical example when Adam and Eve disobeyed the straightforward rule against eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
Human Relations Movement
The scientific and bureaucratic approaches gradually evolved toward more humanistic management theories based on the premise that well-treated employees outperform strictly managed ones. The Hawthorne experiments of the 1930s at Western Electric, analyzed by Roethlisberger and Dickson in Management and the Worker, demonstrated that psychological factors like feeling valued produced greater productivity increases than physical working conditions. This revolutionary finding preceded the development of fields like organizational behavior and industrial psychology.
Henry Gantt, while famous for his production scheduling charts, also recognized the importance of human motivation in productivity. He emphasized that workers should master current methods before suggesting improvements, balancing practical experience with theoretical approaches. Despite developing tools that might appear to mechanize work processes, Gantt advocated industrial democracy – believing that organizations should harmonize with natural laws to help people reach their potential (Urwick & Brech, 1945).
Henry S. Dennison, president of Dennison Manufacturing Company, further integrated social sciences into management during the 1930s and 40s through employee testing, methods analysis, and profit-sharing through non-transferable common stock. His balanced approach cautioned against organizational imbalance, using the armored dinosaur analogy – so well protected it starved to death – to illustrate how over-specialization endangers organizational survival.
George Elton Mayo’s 1940s research established that team participation provided stronger motivation than economic self-interest or workplace improvements like enhanced lighting or extended breaks (Merrill, 1960).
Motivation Theory
Abraham Maslow’s groundbreaking 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation” introduced his Hierarchy of Needs, explaining why employees might remain dissatisfied despite receiving seemingly comprehensive benefits. By recognizing that different employees require different motivators based on their current needs, managers could develop more effective motivation strategies. Someone addressing basic survival needs responds better to salary increases than prestigious titles, while established executives might prefer status symbols over modest raises.
The Bible illustrates this principle when the Israelites faced water and food shortages in the desert – unable to focus on military development or preparing for the Promised Land until these basic needs were satisfied. Conversely, Korach, already wealthy and secure, sought self-actualization through leadership status, disguising his personal ambition as concern for common people.
Douglas McGregor’s 1960 book The Human Side of Enterprise introduced Theory X and Theory Y management approaches that remain foundational to management studies:
Theory X (authoritarian management) assumes:
- People dislike and avoid work
- Most require coercion and punishment threats
- Most prefer security, avoid responsibility, and seek direction
Theory Y (participative management) assumes:
- Work is as natural as play or rest
- People exercise self-direction when committed to objectives
- Commitment develops through rewards associated with achievement
- People seek and accept responsibility under proper conditions
- Most possess substantial creativity and ingenuity
- Modern organizations utilize only partial human intellectual potential
Frederick Herzberg’s research with engineers and accountants identified dual aspects of job motivation. His 1959 paper established that satisfiers and dissatisfiers weren’t simply opposites: “the job satisfiers deal with factors involved in doing the job, whereas the job dissatisfiers deal with factors which define the job context” (Mind360, 2012).
Herzberg categorized positive elements as “motivators” that satisfy psychological needs:
- Achievement
- Recognition
- The work itself
- Advancement opportunities
- Responsibility
Negative elements he termed “hygiene factors” that cause dissatisfaction:
- Supervision
- Salary
- Working conditions
- Interpersonal relations
- Company policies/administration
His classic work, The Motivation to Work (1993), remains unchallenged in industrial psychology.
Biblical Organizational Principles
The Bible demonstrates sophisticated organizational principles throughout its narratives. Divine rewards were clearly established from Abraham through Moses and directly to the people. Motivation incorporated both positive incentives (family blessings, possessions, land) and negative consequences (potential death). This comprehensive motivational framework supported the complex organizational structure of twelve tribes, each with specific roles.
Beyond rewards and punishments, the Bible serves as a comprehensive guide for self-actualization – suggesting the Israelites sought this highest developmental level three millennia before Maslow articulated his theory.
Deliverables
While planning involves risk assessment and future orientation, organizing represents the management element many find most comfortable. Effective organizing provides visible results—appropriate hiring, effective training, and successful motivation all demonstrate managerial competence. Plans may change due to environmental shifts, but organizing effectiveness remains evident through observable outcomes. The Bible establishes both robust organizational structures and comprehensive motivation systems applicable to an entire nation.
Management can leverage organizational principles to:
- Develop Comprehensive Employee Development: Implement education beyond mere training to enhance understanding and engagement, as demonstrated in Moses’ preparation of Joshua.
- Break Down Organizational Silos: Create cross-functional experiences and shared objectives to prevent territorial behaviors that undermine organizational effectiveness.
- Balance Efficiency with Effectiveness: Focus not just on doing things correctly but on doing the right things, consistently asking “What can I contribute?” at every organizational level.
- Build Cultural Cohesion: Foster unified commitment to organizational objectives through shared values, clear expectations, and strong organizational identity.
- Apply Appropriate Motivational Approaches: Recognize that different employees require different motivational strategies based on their current needs and developmental stage.
Discussion Questions
- Which management theory discussed in this chapter most resonates with you?
- Which management theory not discussed in this chapter most resonates with you?
- What theory, if any, do you think is inaccurate?
- What do you think represents self-actualization for yourself?
- What hygiene factor is most relevant for you in your current job?
- What motivator factor is most relevant for you in your current job?
