The organization theory perspective that I find myself most attracted to is social network theory. The essence of this perspective as I understand it is that each participant (individual, group, organization) is an actor in a complicated network of relationships that form a ground for mutual benefits. The multiple events in my background and aspects of my personality that I feel lead me to be predisposed toward this perspective are when I first worked part-time in a cafeteria in the central part of the city, CoffeeIn. I was working there as a waiter. The thing is that the body of the cafeteria functions well if the ties of inter-organizational relationships are strong. It means that each member of the personnel knows his/her job and asks for help from those specializing in this or that type of work to be done. Even though they are not such people to fulfill the particular task, a company can easily rely on those actors who are related to two or more networks (middlemen).
In this respect, the aforementioned organization provided really strong communication with partners and inside the cafeteria and, thus, information was always reaching people who should analyze it and provide feedback instead. Moreover, the construct of the company was grounded on the separation of individuals working in it into groups that specialize in some definite areas of work provided upon customers’ requests. It concerned completing orders and providing the best level of service. In fact, the relationships provided within the company every single day are well-done due to the appropriate functioning of it in three main dimensions concerning the social capital. These are: structural, relational, and cognitive (Hatch and Cunliffe 333). Each day employees were highly motivated to come in time and start working in accordance with the previously scheduled timetable maintained and assigned by a senior manager. The cognitive aspect was where a company laid more emphasis.
The organization theory perspective that I find myself least attracted to is organizational identity. The essence of this perspective as I understand it lies in the self-evolutional steps that an individual should go through concerning the business he/she is into, the current stage of progress, and considered goals. The multiple events in my background and aspects of my personality that I feel lead me to be predisposed toward this perspective were when we were trying to reshape the landscape design around the place where the cafeteria is situated. The contractors were a highly valued firm in this field of activities. They had a distinct plan and terms for the completion of this work. However, the direct executors of such specific kinds of work were not capable to implement the peculiarities of the initial design in reality. There was either a kind of mismatch in the qualification of workers or a lack of information coming straightforwardly from the designers. Thus, they had no idea what had been desired by the cafeteria’s senior manager at the very beginning of the project.
In conclusion, one cannot just rely on some unique theoretical framework in organizing the work process. It is a diversity of principles and theoretical interpretations in cooperation with people that makes the whole work process thrive. Hence, the bilateral outlook on the aforementioned organization theory perspectives should be considered in terms of their particular overlapping in the workspace. At least, it makes the development of relationships within a company grow positively. The explanation to it lies in the following proverb: a problem shared is a problem halved. The more means for the realization of coherence in the workplace are implied, the better.
Works cited
Hatch, Mary Jo and Cunliffe, Ann L. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. Ed. 2. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, USA, 2006.