Now, it has come to my ridiculous attention that a really big conflict is taking place as I am blogging right now.
The sad part, like all wars, this conflict actually is like any other game. It is a game that you need to pull people into your sides. Obviously, you are either winning or you are losing. And to me, it is a huge embarrassment. It is like running around in your undergarments in your neighbourhood. Not to put any fear into any of you, but people are actually talking more about you. People are staring, making observations, perceptions, more hatred, more unity. It really depends which side you are on.
Perceptions are born, bred and raised. For someone who does not have any idea about who you are in their previous life, the way you act in such a conflict is acceptable enough for individuals or society to stereotype you in a certain way.
For some, you are their inspiration. You stood up for your rights, you truly believe in what you are fighting for and that since there is a cause to fight, why not battle for it?
Now, I am in no position to be the negotiator or a jury here. I will not and shall not pick any sides. Like all sane humans we are, why not sit down and seek solutions?
Find the problem of where it could possibly went wrong? Get witnesses, pretenders(pretenders here is a noun mind you). Others that could actually cause the conflict. I am sure it is not just 2 heads clash without a third party.
Posted at » 7:49 AM
Saturday, November 08, 2008
The Classical Approach
Max Weber, a man with great sociological vision, had made significant contributions under the subject management. He was firm in his theories of bureaucratic management, in which he put forth the real and true structure of organisations in the midst of the post industrial revolution. In the most hilarious of terms, his study was not based on an organisation in an active manufacturing industrial landscape in Western Germany. Weber opted to study Germany's governmental bureaucracy---
the Weltpolitik.(Please note that the regime of Weltpolitik is as aggresive as those under Hitler's regime. However, some historians do point out that this regime could possibly be the most war-driven empire in modern Europe.)
Weber's definition of bureaucracy was largely based on formal hierachy, with this underlying framework of systems and rules, which were to ensure the permanence of the organisation, even though jobs within it might change.
The main characteristics of bureaucracy are
: rules and regulations
: impersonality
: division of labour
: hierarchical structure
: life-long career commitment
: authority structure
: rationality
Bureaucracy is everywhere. In fact, it is a simplistic idea. Common sense suggest that a new recruit, probably on the first day, have no single right to just barge in the doors of his CEO or his directors. All organisations have their own defined structure and the procedures to follow. Any individual that had been employed by an organisation before might have heard the term "chain of command" before. That itself is not a law, it is a standing order. It simply paints the harsh reality of organisations, although humanitarians suggest that
ALL MAN ARE THE SAME.Weber developed his ideas by considering three different forms of authority. Charisma---the power position is kept through the strength of an individual personality via his merits. Tradition--is also consistently linked to nepotism where the position of authority arises out of custom or birthright. Legal rational authority--where the power position is based on impersonal rules and laws that apply to all, that is, compliance is due to the office/position rather than the person holding it.
For all its strength in efficiency and predictability, one should never discount the negative aspect of Weber's theory. For instance, nepotism and class conciousness tended to influence career advancement rather than ability. In the case of a government, it could possibly result in concentration of power where the ideals of freedom and bureaucracy might be threatened here.
Moreover, Bennis(1966) suggests that bureaucratic ideals are perhaps not so viable in the late 20th Century.
The weaknesses of a bureacracy is quite stark actually. For one, an organisation would be slow to react to changing economic environment and hence could stagger their process of expansion.
As bureaucracy focus on a very rigid system and patterns of work, staffs within such organisation would go through routine tasks repeatedly. There would be very little development and retraining of staff, and as expectedly, staff turnover rate would be high within a bureaucratic organisation.
Other theories to look into.
1) Scientific Management
2) Administrative Management
3)Human Relations Theory
