1. Introduction

People at all levels of social experience pursue their materials and spiritual goals within the structure of organizations as “miniature societies in which the dominant values of society are inculcated and sought in a more structured, spatially restricted context” [1], [2]. Thus, nearly all activities of the individuals fall within the parameters of organizational norms and values. This explains the position that “man is intent on drawing himself into a web of collectivized patterns. Modern man has learned to accommodate himself to a world increasingly organized [3]. Typically, individual tends to define himself or herself and, his or her position relative to society by referring to organizational membership. And, the pervasiveness of this condition or tendency has permeated the nerves of every society thus lending credence to the ubiquity and importance of organizations and, the constant tendencies for theoretical constructs on the concept by various theorists at different points in time within the society. The essence of this can be located within the parameters of the fact that nearly everybody in the society belongs to one or more organizations. And, there is usually overlapping of organizational membership. Assuming this is correct, one needs to ask the question: what is an organization?

Taking the foregoing into consideration, one may be tempted to assume that the definition of the term organization is a simple one, but this is not so. The concept of organization is not free from definitional pluralism and its accompanying intellectual disputations which constitute a common rule of the thumb within the discipline of political science and other social sciences.

Various definitions of organization have been given from different perspectives a trend which conveys the complexity of the subject matter of this paper. Chester Barnard [4] defines organization as a “system of consciously coordinated personal activities or forces of two or more persons”, while Victor Thompson [5] cited in Waldo [6], [7] takes organization as “a highly rationalized and impersonal integration of a large number of specialists operating to achieve some announced specific objectives” through a “modern bureaucracy” predicated on “specialization” and, “an hierarchical framework” [5]. This, on its own was articulated by Robert Presthus [2], as “structural characteristics of specialization, hierarchy, oligarchy and interpersonal relations that are explicitly differentiated by authority”. Thus, organization is “a continuing system of differentiated and coordinated human activities utilizing, transforming and welding together a specific set of human, material, capital, ideational and natural resources into a unique, problem-solving whole whose function is to satisfy particular human needs in interaction with other systems of human activities and resources in its particular environment [8], [6], [7].

In contributing to the analytical appraisal of the concept of organization, Talcott Parson [9], likened organization to “a broad type of collectivity which has assumed a particularly important place in modern industrial societies –the type of which the term “Bureaucracy” is most often applied”. He conceptualized organization as “the special type of social system organized about the primacy of interest in the attainment of a particular type of system goal”. He went further to contend that “an organization is conceived as having a describable structure” which can be analyzed from two broad perspectives both of which are “essential to completeness” and; explicated the two perspectives as inclusive of both “cultural-institutional” and “group” or “role” points of view . Consequent upon this he articulated his position thus:

An organization is a system which, as the attainment of its goal, “produces” an identifiable something, which can be utilized in some way by another system; that is the output of the organization is, for some other system, an input. In the case of an organization with economic primacy, this output may be a class of goods or services which are either consumable or serve as instruments for a further phase of the production process by other organizations. In the case of a government agency the output may be a class of regulatory decisions; in that of an educational organization it may be certain type of “trained capacity” on the part of the students who have been subjected to its influence. In any of these cases there must be a set of consequences of the processes which go on within the organizations, which make a difference to the functioning of some other sub-system of the society; that is, without the production of certain goods the consuming unit must behave differently i.e., suffer a “deprivation” [9].

These various definitions notwithstanding, it can be argued to a significant extent that nearly all organizations have specialized and limited goals and, that they are “purposeful complex human collectivities, characterized by secondary (or impersonal) relationships, integrated within a larger social system, providers of services and products to their environment, dependent on exchanges with their environment, sustained co-operative activity” [10].

The pervasiveness of organization in human society is undeniably a progeny of the metamorphoses of human society per se. Hence, as once noted “some of the reasons for intense organizational activities are found in the fundamental transitions which revolutionized our society; changing it from a rural culture to a culture based on technology, industry and the city. And, that from these changes, a way of life emerged characterized by the proximity and dependency of people on each other” [3]. It has been further argued that “traditionally, organization is viewed as a vehicle for accomplishing goals and objectives” even though, its conceptualization so far tends to erect a veil on the inner dynamics (i.e., both the inner workings and internal purposes) of the organization itself.

Organization has equally been conceived as a purposeful mechanism for offsetting or neutralizing forces which are capable of undermining human collaborative existence. Thus, organization acts as a “minimizer” of conflicts through the lessening of individual’s behavior which is usually subjugated to the dictate of the organization’s orientation. In the process, it has been articulated that “organization enhances the predictability of human action because it limits the number of behavioral alternatives available to an individual” [3]. This standpoint, has equally once been emphasized by Robert Presthus in his definition of organization as “a system of structured interpersonal relations (within which) individuals are differentiated in terms of authority, status and role with the result that personal interaction is prescribed or structured (through which) anticipated reactions tend to occur, while ambiguity and spontaneity are decreased” [11], [12], [1], [2].

The ubiquity of these factors and, the pervasiveness of individual’s membership in one or more organizations as already articulated, has led to the genesis within the disciplinary parameters of the social sciences a sub-field called “the organizational theory” which deals with the revelation of organizational behavior, membership or, the chemistry of organizational structure. Organizational theory is a progeny of various inspirations ranging from the drive to improve industrial organization’s productivity to the observation of human behaviors or, the introduction of rationality and predictability into (social) organizational relations. Variables like internal structure, authority relationship, roles and other features have long formed the kernel of the concerns of organizational theorists.

Organizational theory in the real sense of the concept has been argued to have begun with the pioneering work of the German classical sociological writer and thinker, Max Weber (1864-1920). It was Weber who brought to our attention the characteristics of organizations as exemplified by the now universally acclaimed concept of bureaucracy and its features of hierarchy, rules, authority, procedures, officialdom, expertise, impersonality, division of labor among others [10], [6], [7]. However, given the eclecticism of the social and management sciences, it should be stated at this point that, we are not unmindful of the scholastic contestation of the claim of preeminence on the genesis of organizational theory. This is particularly so in the sense that there seems to be a contradiction regarding the actual school of thought that formed the foundation of organizational theory. While it has been argued by some that, human relations school preceded the classical school, others have argued differently or, to the contrary. While some theorists belong to the school that gives preeminence to human relations school, others belong to the latter which confers preeminence on the classical school of thought [10], [13], [14], [15]. In fact, Shafritz and Whitbeck [15], rated Max Weber [16]-whose work on “Bureaucracy” of 1922 was later republished in 1946 [17] - fourth on the preeminence scale after Adam Smith, Frederick Taylor and, Henri Fayol [18], [19], [20], [21].

In his own contributions to the issue of preeminence of scholars in their contributions to the subject matter of organizational theory and its evolution or growth, Scott [3] argued that organizational theory has gone through many stages –“classical theory”, “neo-classical theory”, to “modern organizational theory.” According to him “classical theory of organization is concerned with principles common to all organizations”. It is a macro-organizational view that deals with the gross anatomical parts and processes of the formal organization. He summed his view of the development or metamorphoses of the organizational theory and the reasons for it thus “many variations in the classical administrative model result from human behavior. The only way these variations could be understood was by a microscopic examination of particularized situational aspects of human behavior. The mission of the neo-classical school is thus “micro-analysis…and, the forcing of the social system into limbo by the neo-classical theorist led to the emergence or genesis of modern organization theory” [3].

The features or principles associated with the theory in all stages of its development or transition as articulated by the various scholars on it subject at the various stages could be said to have now become the nerves of modern organizational structures in today’s world. Thus, organizational theory is now an area of inquiry shared by various disciplines like sociology, psychology within the social sciences. And, like other concepts of “public policy”, “public choice theory”, “structural functionalism”, organizational theory has gained penetration into the realm of political science as a sub-field.

As a sub-field within the discipline of political science, the concept of organizational theory has not been free from problems. One of the problems has to do with the multiplicity of its definitions which, as Peter Self [22] once articulated, tends to suggest the liability of organizational theory to fall into the fallacy of “misplaced concreteness”. Thus, according to Self [22] one need to ask whether “organizations are properly regarded as separate entities having lives, histories of their own, and subject to ascertainable laws of growth and decay” or, “they consist rather of fluctuating and overlapping systems of co-operative action possessing only a small degree of autonomous behaviour and intelligible mainly in terms of wider systems of social behaviour”. The need for this clarification and avoidance of the fallacy of “misplace concreteness” on the subject matter of organizational theory according to Peter Self is compelled by the fact that:

While both concepts may be valid within limits, the choice of the first approach easily leads into dubious beliefs about the solidity and autonomy of particular organizations. This may be reflected in a tendency to believe that all the intellectual descriptions that can be offered of the functioning of an organization are practically significant or meaningful. It is generally agreed that an organization does not consist of a set of persons and equipment, but of a system of co-operative action governed by rules and by actual or presumed objectives. An individual often belongs to many organizations. Not only do organizations extensively overlap in membership but they also often form cumulative pyramidal systems or linked horizontal systems. The most usual definition of formal organization is a juristic one, expressive of legal status, rights and liabilities. However, a legally defined organization is sometimes a relatively weak centre of decision-making and may be controlled to a large extent from other centres. The definition and enumeration of organizations poses considerable problems [22].

Against this analytical premise, Self [22] further contended that:

Organisation theory is prone to the fallacy of ‘misplaced concreteness’ when it supposes that organizations possess clearer boundaries, greater autonomy and stronger loyalties than they do. The theory that the first aim of an organization is survival is in a sense a tautology. A particular organization cannot continue with its work if it ceases to exist. The theory that the second organizational aim is growth is not a tautology, and is often, but not universally, true. Growth frequently enables an organization to pursue its goals more effectively, to enjoy greater stability in relations with its environment, and to offer greater satisfactions to its members. Thus it is natural to hypothesize that most organizations possess intrinsic tendencies towards growth, if circumstances permit. However, every organization is composed of individuals, each of whom has his or her personal aims which will frequently be different from those pursued by the organization as a whole. The willing support of most members is contingent upon some agreement between personal and organizational aims, and their support is also related to the possibilities of pursuing personal aims more effectively by switching to some other organization; this is so whether personal aims are material or ideal, selfish or altruistic.

Another problem is that organizational theory does not actually provide much help with the evolution and resolution of administrative conflict. It is dormant along this dimension and, also silent with regards to the question of how much and, what kind of competition is desirable between parts of the administrative system and how such competition should be structured [22]. As a matter of fact, the combination of these problems and, the need to gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter of this concept has long constituted weighty challenges to political scientists within the discipline of political science and its sub-discipline of public administration and other related fields most of which seemed to have assumed independent disciplinary status or, are claiming to be independent or distinct from political science within the disciplinary parameters of the social sciences. Thus, these challenges continue to dominate scholarship and the pursuit of the expansion of the frontiers of our knowledge within these disciplines and fields up to this period and, the trend shows no sign of dissipation as far as the future of the disciplines and others is concerned.

Given this preamble, this paper is a theoretical expedition into the genesis of organizational theory. It attempts to explore its development up to the current era of globalization tracing the various characteristics of the paradigms that have dotted its growth and development from the classical period. It intends to highlight and elucidate the various contributions of scholars, researchers and practitioners on its subject matter over the years. It equally intends to examine the issue of the classicalism of the organization theory itself and its implications and challenges for today’s administrators and, the administrative landscape in which they may find themselves.

In the pursuit of the goal in the paper we have divided it into four broad sections some of which have sub-components. The introduction provides the choreography of the paper as well as the definitional explication of the concept of organization as applicable within the context of our focus. Section one treats the subject matter of organizational theory while section two examines its growth from the classical era to the neo-classical era. The core of the analyses in this section, deals with the contributions of the various scholars, researchers and practitioners as they affect the different paradigms the theory has passed through. While section three deals with the critiques of the doctrines from the classical; neo-classical to the newer traditions section four contains a detailed analysis of the foundational articulations of the organizational theorists on the subject matter of the paper. The conclusion provides relevant prescriptions for today’s administrative landscape and scholarship. It raises a poser as to what lies ahead concerning the theory of organization within the context of the planetary phenomenon of globalization and its thesis which has been predicated on the catechism of a “global village” [23].

2. The Subject-Matter of Organizational Theory

The concept of theory even though, debatable, is indispensably relevant to all human phenomena. This continues to be significantly so in today’s world amidst the demands of the current planetary phenomenon of globalization and its attendant “villagization” of the world into a single community through a “transcendental homogenization of political and socio-economic theory across the globe” [23]. And, in spite of the entrapment of the global village or community by these new developments and the octopus of globalization and its assumed homogenized socio-economic and political values predicated on its uneven thesis, it still faces the challenges of the multidimensionality of human needs and aspirations within organizations and human settings which on their own continue to provoke the need for theoretical constructs concerning the plights, existential conditions, needs and situations of those in such organizations. Thus, theory as a concept, has come to occupy a central place in the systemic existence of the universe and all entities within it including all humans and all the issues that have to do with their survival and continuous search for orderliness and fulfillments to mention only a few.

This has been largely so in that, regardless of the geo-political location within the globe the structural orderliness, meaning, development, co-ordination, purposeful planning, futuristic predictions and predictability in our society are any without doubt predicated on the foundation provided by theoretical constructs. And, one of such theoretical constructs that has gained pedagogical, scholastic and humanistic prominence within the organizational world over the years is organizational theory.

Given these realities this paper considers the subject matter of organizational theory as a prelude to the analysis of its developmental trend exemplified by the works of various scholars and paradigmatic changes that have characterized its growth. This discourse itself is premised on the theoretical arguments and analyses of some scholars on the subject matter. These works are genealogically discussed; reviewed and; analyzed in this paper to bring them into contemporary reach of people within the academia and the world in general at this period of globalization and its supersonic transformation in information technology.

The discourse is motivated by the need to highlight some of the issues that have evolved over the subject matter of organizational theory and its development over the years. Not only this, analysis of any phenomenon can only be meaningfully carried out on the basis of its conceptual understanding through appropriate definition(s). Generally, the development of organizational theory as a “science” or, towards a “science” since the 1930s has been subjected to various criticisms which need attention the kind of which can be given through the conceptual analysis we envisage in this paper. Dwight Waldo’s [6], [7] articulation below lends credence to our contention in this regard:

A definition of organization is a theory of organization-at least a crude sketch of a theory-for it must necessarily try to state in general, more or less in abstract terms what the essentials are and how they relate…..It seems outrageous (or indifferent to matters of importance) to try to proceed to a careful examination of any phenomenon (e.g., organization) without an attempt to define, that is, to understand and agree upon what the object of examination is, at least in general terms and as now understood.

Thus, contemporary organizational theory which has been called “behavioral”-(due to its focus on the individuals’ - personality- within the organizational set up), - according to Dwight Waldo “represents an inter disciplinary approach and, views organizations as social milieu in which the individual is concerned with factors like his role, status, perception of authority and leadership as well as the role of the organizations in society”. This explains his definition of organizational theory as “a conceptual scheme, the aim (but not necessarily the achievement) of which is to enable us to understand, to predict, and to control (if we wish) organizational phenomena” [6], [7].

Within the confines of studies dealing with organizational theory, it has been emphasized that “modern man’s life is the product of living in a society in which most of his life is organized for him”. This suggests that organizational theory is not concerned with personality but with those aspects of behaviors which are determined by organizational structures. And, that “organizational theory provides the grounds for management activities in a number of significant areas of business endeavor and, that, it is not a homogenous science based on generally accepted principles” [3].

In his further analysis of the concept of organizational theory, Waldo [6], [7] treats it as a corollary of administrative theory though, of a less value-involvement than the latter. The scholar tied the genesis and rise of organizational theory to various sources including the birth of behavioral orientation and, the often cited notion that ours is an age of organization. He summed his position on this aspect thus:

In general, among those concerned with the scientific approach to the study of “co-operative actions”, there has been something of a movement away from the terms (like) “administration”, “administrative”, and “administrative theory” to the terms (like) “organization”, “organizational”, and “organizational theory”.

According to this scholar, mood of behavioralism were responsible for this movement in the behavioralists’ quest for scientific method in their study of social phenomena. Thus, as Scott [3] noted, various theories of organization have been and, are being evolved as exemplified by the emergence of modern organization theory which, while incurring the wrath of the traditionalists have captured the imagination of a rather elite avant-garde within the scholarship of political science and public administration and, the administrative landscape.

This movement and the metamorphoses it has brought to the concept of organizational theory within the disciplines of political science and public administration have been variously characterized and elucidated by scholars, researchers and practitioners within the theoretical and practical world of public administration. This movement which dates back to the classical epoch refers to “the beginning of the beginnings” from our perspective. The metamorphoses inherent in this movement have been variously tagged or conceptualized by various writers. According to Scott [3] the metamorphoses could be tagged “classical”, “neo-classical”, and “modern” theories of organization. And, Waldo [6], [7], argues that organizational theory has spanned across various stages starting with the “classical stage” followed by the “neo-classical stage” and, ending up the “planners” (planning stage). Others have tagged them as transition from “closed-model” to “open-model” and, a possible synthesis of the two through the newer tradition. In fact, Henry [10] chronicles the evolution of organizational theory over the years right from the “classical conceptualization of organization” itself and, the views of man within the organizational setting (e.g. Weber’s bureaucratic theory, Taylor’s scientific management and, administrative management) to the “neo-bureaucratic theory” of organization which maintains a less pessimistic view and more liberalized notion regarding the positions of employees within the organization (e.g. human relations school, organization development, organization as a unit of analysis) and; the newer tradition (i.e., synthesis of “close and open models”). In short, this scholar trisected the evolution of organizational theory into major streams of “close” and “open” models and, “newer tradition” (synthesis) model.

In contributing to the subject matter of organizational theory, this scholar utilized the definition of a model-(a tentative definition that fits the data available about a particular object) - as a prelude to the analysis of the actual threads or evolution of organization theory. The rationale for doing this as the scholar argued, is that “unlike a definition, a model does not represent an attempt to express the basic irreducible nature of the object and, it is a freer approach that can be adapted to situations as needed” [10]. He emphasized the fact that the use of model is appropriate in the commencement of the explication of organization theory due to the equivocal nature of the word organization. He premised his stand on this on the physicists’ position vis-à-vis the use of models in the explanation of phenomena thus:

Unlike a definition, a model does not represent an attempt to express the basic, irreducible nature of the object, and is a freer approach that can be adapted to situations as needed. Thus, physicists treat electrons in one theoretical situation as infinitesimal particles and in another as invisible waves. The theoretical model of electrons permit both treatments, chiefly because no one knows exactly what an electron is- (i.e., no one knows its definition) - so it is with organization [10].

This, in itself shows that the term organization means different things to different people. Thus, its meaning and evolution over the years have been articulated from various perspectives and contexts relevant or peculiar to the definer(s). However, it should be stated that, none of these changes or metamorphoses which cut across various periods or intellectual paradigms, can be explained, in isolation from the other. This explains the focus of sections three, four and five of this paper which while fully capturing the various paradigm changes, respectively deals with the evolution of organizational theory from its - (classical) - beginning to the present focusing on the general analysis of the movement or development on the subject matter of organizational theory itself; the criticisms of the threads of organization theory up to the neo-classical period leading to the newer tradition and; the respective organizational theorists and their positions as originally articulated by them in a way that more or less suggests a synoptic recapitulation of the articulated position in this paper. Even though, it may be difficult to differentiate the core of the analyses in these three sections, we have nevertheless attempted to make an effort in the direction we have chosen because of the eclecticism and challenging nature of the subject matter of our focus. This, in itself, dictates the nature of our conclusion.

3. Organizational Theory: From Classical to Neo-Classical

3.1. The Classical Doctrine

Organizational theory has its origin embedded in the classical doctrine which deals primarily with the structure or anatomy of formal organization. This gave birth to what is today referred to as classical organizational theory. Classical organizational theory was the foremost theory of organization from which other or subsequent theories took their roots. According to Shafritz and Whitbeck [15] “classical organization theory as its name implies was the first theory of its kind. It is considered traditional and will continue to be the base upon which subsequent theories are based”. It is classical in the sense that it has been supplanted by other modern theories. Commenting on this Shafritz and Whitbeck [15] averred that “the honor of being acclaimed classical is not bestowed on anything until it has been supplanted”. This notwithstanding, its tenets continue to permeate the physiological fibers of modern day organizations.

The pedigree of organization theory can actually be trace to the classical work of Adam Smith. This classical economist undoubtedly represented one of the parenting theorists of organization theory as it is known and regarded today. This has been summed up thus:

It is customary to trace the lineage of present day theories to Adam Smith, the Scottish Economist who provided the intellectual foundation for laissez faire capitalism. His most famous work, an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (1776), devotes its first chapter “of division of labor” to a discussion of the optimum organization of a pin factory [15].

This puts to rest the issue of preeminence among the various scholars who have worked or contributed to the subject matter of organizational theory earlier highlighted based on the works of some management sciences’ scholars [10].

The principles of scientific management euphemistically referred to as “taylorism” gained a wider currency about a century after Adam Smith’s concept of division of labor within the organization Frederick Winslow Taylor, the acknowledged father of the scientific management movement developed the time and motion studies. He based this study on “the notion of one best way” of accomplishing any given task. Taylorism sought to increase output by discovering the fastest, most efficient and least fatiguing production method [10]. And, once this best way was found, its imposition upon the organization was always the next step. The rationale for this imposition which could be interpreted as the organization’s desire to plug any possible avenue through which employees can cheat on the organization or go slow on the job thereby injuring the profit maximizing efforts of the organization is best put into perspective by the tayloristic perception of man within the organizational set up to the effect that “nineteen out of twenty workmen throughout the civilized world firmly believe that it is for their best interest to go slow instead of to go fast. They firmly believe that it is for their best interest to give as little work in return for the money they get as is practical”.

In his own contribution to the historical evolution of the organizational theory, Scott [3] identified the formative stage of “taylorism” as part of the foundation of classical organizational theory. This is implicit in his argument that “the classical doctrine (or theory of organization) can be traced back to Frederick Taylor’s interest in functional foremanship and planning staffs”. This explains Dwight Waldo’s [6], [7] argumentative premise that:

Scientific management is a theory that, taking efficiency as the objective, views administration as a technical problem concerned basically with the division of labor and the specialization of function…….It is the theory which distinguishes four organizational bases: purpose, process, clientele or material, and place; and designates the work of the executive as concerned with POSDCORB—planning, organizing, staffing, directing coordinating, reporting and budgeting. Its symbol is organization chart [6], [7].

Lending credence to Waldo’s position, Scott [3] emphasized that “classical organization is built around four key pillars of division of labor, the scalar and functional processes, structure and, span of control”. Out of these, division of labor undoubtedly constitutes the cornerstone of the classical theory. Apart from forming part of the parentage of the classical conception of organization theory through the eighteenth century (1776) works of Adam Smith, division of labor occupies a central place in Max Weber’s explication of bureaucracy which is equally one of the various fibers that form the physiology of classical organization theory [15]. This tally with Waldo’s [6], [7] explication of Weberian bureaucratic model as part of the classical tradition in organizational theory and that, it gave primacy to the issue of formalism and its accompanying characteristic of division of labor. This scholar summed up the core of Weberian bureaucratic model as “the familiar picture of a hierarchy of authority organizing and in turn shaped by the division of labor and specialization of function with full time position in principle on merit, regular career ladders etc”. This model according to this scholar is indispensable to the understanding of a general organizational theory:

Certainly any striving toward a general organizational theory (through the comparative route) cannot ignore bureaucratic theory; nor until a more accurate and revealing picture of the total organizational world is created, can anyone ignore bureaucratic theory if the objective is the central one of liberal education to understand one’s world in relation to oneself [6], [7].

There are other or, many schools of thought within the classical theory of organization which need to be critically analyzed. These schools of thought have shown that the development of classical theory like other theories reflected the beliefs or values of its time regarding hoe organizations worked or should work. Consequent on this, “the first theories of organizations were concerned with the anatomy or structure of formal organization” [15]. This made the concern for organizational structure premised on the rational behavior of its human parts, the hallmark of classical organizational theory.

The history of organizational theory shows that, its subject matter from the beginning, has been polarized by what Charles Perrow [13], [14] called the “forces of darkness” – (classical theory) – and the “forces of light” – (human relations school) – which falls within the parameters of the neo-classical doctrine. This polarization is far from being over because the asymmetrical standpoints of the two viewpoints in relations to organizations have generated various theoretical analyses of organization without any identifiable attainment of intellectual or philosophical consensus. According to this scholar, the forces of darkness within the developmental trend of organizational theory have been represented by those (mechanical school of organizational theory) who treat organization as a machine through its characterization of organizations in terms of “centralized authority, clear lines of authority, specialization and expertise, marked division of labor, rules and regulations and clear separation of staff and line”. And, that the forces of light have been represented by the human relations school which emphasizes people and such things as “delegation of authority, employees’ autonomy, trust and openness, concerns with the whole person and, interpersonal dynamics” [13], [14].

Putting these into a clearer perspective, Perrow [13], [14] argued that the threads of organizational theory started with the formulation of classical theories towards the end of nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century. And, that these classical theories have been characterized as “the scientific management or classical management”. The dictatorial or regimented nature of the classical organizational theories were not without resentment from the beginning but “no effective counterforce (to the classical formulated position) developed until Chester Barnard’s (1938) work [4] entitled “functions of Executives”, which theorized organization as nothing but co-operative systems. This work stressed the existence of natural groups within the organizations and, the need for “upward communication”, “authority from below rather than from above” and “leaders who function as a cohesive force” [4]. The counterforce also came in terms of research orientation and outputs as exemplified by the publication of the outcome of the Hawthorne Plant experiment on productivity and social relations [24]. This is evident from the fact that “the research highlighted the role of informal groups, work restriction norms, the value of decent, humane leadership and the role of psychological manipulation of employees through the counseling system (which hitherto did not exist in the classical doctrine) (Emphasis mine) [24].

After the intervention of the Second World War, the human relations movement came into existence using as its base, the insights of Barnard’s work [4] and the Hawthorne experiment [24]. Through its intensification the core of most of the researches already (then) conducted, was extended to organizations. Perrow [13], [14] summed up how the philosophy of human relations movement permeated the intellectual and research concerns of many theorists regarding the nature of organizations vis-à-vis the morale of those (employees) within them thus:

As this work (human relations movement or efforts) flourished and spread, more adventurous theorists began to extend it beyond work groups to organization as a whole… (to the extent of knowing that) a number of things were bad for morale and loyalty of groups – routine tasks, submission to authority, specialization of task, segregation of task sequence, ignorance of goals of the firm, centralized decision making and so on – as well as bad for organizations. (Based on this), people began talking about innovation – the forces of light, of freedom, autonomy, change, humanity, creativity, and democracy were winning. Scientific management (i.e., classical doctrine) survived only in outdated text books (Emphasis mine).

This scholar equally situated his articulation of Max Weber’s ideal bureaucratic model within this same perspective. He premised his position on the fact that Weber, in his theory of bureaucracy, clearly and only demonstrated that “bureaucracy was the most effective way of ridding organizations of favoritism, arbitrary authority, discrimination, payola and kick-backs, and yes, even incompetence” [13], [14]. Consequently, he explained the obsolescence of classical formulation (ideal bureaucratic theory) of Weber by articulating the fact that “Weber was all right for a starter, but organization had changed vastly, and the leaders needed many more means of control and more subtle - (human relations) – means of manipulation than they did at the turn of the – twentieth – century” (Emphasis mine) [13]. [14].

In the same vein, Waldo [6], [7] criticized the classical theory of organization most especially the scientific management tradition. He stated his position buy arguing that “in many ways the classical theory was crude, presumptuous, incomplete, and wrong in some of its conclusions, naïve in its scientific methodology, parochial in its outlook. In many ways, it was the end of a movement, not the foundation of science”. He criticized the Weberian bureaucratic theory of the classical tradition both on scientific and moralistic grounds and placed it in the Paleolithic period (i.e., the Stone Age) in terms of scientific crudity.

In contributing to the evolution of the organizational theory right from its historical roots, Henry [10] identified three models –close, open and the newer tradition – as sign posts for understanding the transformation the subject matter has gone through in terms of paradigms and, the characteristics of each state and the reason for transforming from one to the others. He referred to the classical tradition as the close-model of organizational theory which he equally called the “ideal type”. According to him, this model provides the hot bed for the take-off of the subsequent evolution of organization theory. And, that the model perhaps has had the largest influence on the thought and actions of Public Administrationists. This model has equally been variously tagged or called many names ranging from bureaucratic, hierarchical, formal, and rational to mechanistic [10]. Three schools have at least thrived within the realm of the close model. They include “the bureaucratic theory” [16], “Taylorism” [19], and “administrative management” [25]. This scholar emphasized that the close model has some principal features or characteristics which include the following:

● Routine tasks occur in stable conditions.

● Task specialization (i.e., a division of labor).

● Means (or the proper way to do a job) are emphasized.

● Conflict within the organization is adjudicated from the top.

● Responsibility (or what one is supposed to do; one’s formal job description) is emphasized.

● One’s primary sense of responsibility and loyalty are to the bureaucratic sub unit to which one is assigned (e.g., the accounting department).

● The organization is perceived as a hierarchic structure (i.e., structure looks like a pyramid).

● Knowledge is inclusive only at the top of the hierarchy (i.e., only the Chief Executive knows everything).

● Interaction between people in the organization tends to be vertical (i.e., one takes orders from the above and transmit orders below).

● The style of interaction is directed toward obedience, command, and clear super ordinate/subordinate relationships.

● Loyalty and obedience to one’s superior and the organization are generally emphasized.

● Prestige is internalized, that is, personal status in the organization is determined largely by one’s office and rank [25].

This model is an ideal one to be striven for by organizations and, in practice organizations try to fulfill these characteristics/features even though, it may not be possible to put all of them into practice or actualize them. In an attempt to give relevance to the typology of the three schools of thought earlier identified, the scholar examined them respectively.

3.1.1. The Bureaucratic Theory (Max Weber)

The German sociological writer, Max Weber, [16] was the foremost exponent of this school of thought [10]. Contemporary thinking on the subject matter of bureaucracy and its place in organizations is without any doubt predicated on the classical work of Max Weber in that his “analysis of bureaucracy which was first published in 1922” remains the “most influential statement or pronouncement and point of departure for all analyses on the subject” up till today [15]. Henry [10] identified the “bureaucratic theory” school of thought as the first within the “close model organizational theory”. The core of Weberian bureaucratic theory deals with the explanation of bureaucratic (formal) organizations. Thus, according to Shafritz and Whitbeck [15] “Weber used an “ideal-type” approach to extrapolate from the real world the central core of features characteristic of the most fully developed bureaucratic form of organization. Weber’s “characteristic of Bureaucracy” is neither a description of reality nor a statement of normative preference. It is merely an identification of the major variables or features that characterize bureaucracies”.

According to this theory, the features/characteristics of bureaucracy include “hierarchy, promotion based on professional merit and skill, the development of a career service in the bureaucracy, reliance on and use of rules and regulations, and impersonality of relationships among career-professionals in the bureaucracy and with their clientele” [10]. This scholar asserts that the Weberian bureaucratic theory has been the most influential of all the schools (of thought) in the close model and, it most clearly represents the values of the close model [10]. As a matter of fact:

Bureaucracy has emerged as a dominant feature of the contemporary world. Virtually everywhere one looks in both developed and developing nations, economic, social, and political life are extensively influenced by bureaucratic organizations. “Bureaucracy” is generally used to refer to a specific set of structural arrangements. It is also used to refer to specific patterns of behavior-patterns which are not restricted to formal bureaucracies. It is widely assumed that the structural characteristics or organization properly defined as “bureaucratic” influence the behavior of individuals - whether clients or bureaucrats-who interact with them [15].

The predominant and prominence of the bureaucratic theory of organization notwithstanding, the theorists within the open model stream (along the evolutionary trend of organizational theory) have been very critical of the Weberian bureaucratic theory. The open model criticism of this theory has been summed up thus: “open model theorists dislike the rigidity, the inflexibility, the emphasis on means rather than ends, and the manipulative and anti-humanist overtones of Weberian bureaucratic theory” [15]. However, the criticisms of the Weberian theory have on their own been criticized in turn, because they “often have been overdrawn and certainly have not been leveled with Weber’s own social context in mind”.

3.1.2. Scientific Management- [talorism] (Frederick Winslow Taylor)

This theory, propounded by Frederick Taylor represents another stream of the close model of organizations and its theoretical evolution and paradigm changes. This theory and its emphasis on time motion studies, flourished in the early part of twentieth century and, it remains very much relevant today in industry. The most firmly entrenched feature of this theory rests on its view of humanity through which it perceives “human beings as being adjuncts of the machine”, and, who must be made “efficient as the machines they operate” [19], [15]. The values and philosophy of the exponent for this theory were probably responsible for this perception. Frederick Taylor, the acknowledged “father” of scientific management found it necessary to articulate the fact that workers could be much more productive if their work was scientifically designed. He pioneered the development of “time- and – motion” studies. This was premised upon the notion that there was “one best way” of accomplishing any given task. Generally, “taylorism” sought to increase output by discovering the fastest, most efficient and least fatiguing production method. Once the “one best way” to do the job was (is) found the job of the scientific manager was (is) to impose the procedure upon his organization [15]. However, this “man as machine” orientation has been criticized and condemned through the emphasis that “man as machine model of the scientific management (school) has a distasteful aura. Men are not machines. They do not have array of buttons on their backs that merely need pressing for them to be machines” [10].

3.1.3. Administrative Management

This represents another stream of thought on the issue of organizational theory within the close model. It is called generic management. Citing Luther Gurlick and Lyndall Urwick’s “Papers on science of Administration” [25] as a corollary to James D. Mooney and Alan C. Rieley’s “the Onward Industry” and “Principles of Organization” [26], [27], [28], Henry [10], argued that this theory represents an outstanding example of administrative management in public administration and its scholarship. According to him, it is the presumption of the theory of administrative management that “administration is administration wherever it is found” hence, its other title “generic”. This explains the devotion of the author’s energies to the discovery of “principles” of management that could be applied anywhere. This orientation was a by-product of the pervasive impact of “Taylorism” and its philosophy of “one best way” to accomplish a physical task which can be applied to any kind of administrative institution.

The now famous mnemonic (i.e., memory improving formula) – POSDCORB which stands for the seven major functions of management – planning, organizing, staffing, directing, co-coordinating, reporting and budgeting was predicated on this orientation and philosophy. Even though, there are some points of divergence, administrative management is closer in concept and perceptions to Weberian bureaucratic theory than Taylorism because both bureaucratic theorists and administrative management theorists were, in the view of this scholar, principally concerned with the optimal organization of Administrators rather than that of production workers.

The argumentative premise of the classical doctrine of organizational theory has been drastically affected by the constant changes occasioned by the continuous pursuit of knowledge through better theoretical explications, aimed at the expansion of its frontier. These constant changes which arose out of the growing concern for in-depth understanding of the actual state of things with organizational theory, have permeated the intellectual developments within the realm of organizational theory which is a component of public administration and Public Administration both of which have been analytically differentiated to enhance a proper analysis and understanding thus:

Public administration (lower case) needs to be distinguished from Public Administration (upper case). Public administration (lower case) denotes the institution of public bureaucracy within a state: the organization structures which form the basis of public decision-making and implementation; and the arrangements by which public services are delivered. At the heart of publication administration is the civil service, but it also includes all of the public bodies at regional and local levels. Public Administration (upper case), as a sub-discipline of political science, is the study of public administration (lower case) by means of institutional description, policy analysis and evaluation, and intergovernmental relations analysis [29].

As a matter of fact, the constant quest for better theoretical explanations and understanding on the subject matter of organizational theory over the years had been necessitated by the presumed inherent inadequacies of one theory and theorist by another. And, the classical theory of organization is not an exception to this inadequacy-syndrome:

It would not be fair to say that the classical school is unaware of the day to day administrative problems of the organization. Paramount among these problems are those stemming from human interactions. But the interplay of individual personality, informal groups, intra organizational conflict, and decision-making processes in the formal structure appears largely to be neglected by classical organizational theory. Additionally, the classical theory overlooks the contributions of behavioral sciences by failing to incorporate them in its doctrine in any systematic way….. Classical organizational theory has relevant insights into the nature of organization, but its value is limited by its narrow concentration on the formal anatomy of organization [3].

These inadequacies provided the basis for the emergence of the neo-classical theory of organization which “embarked on the task of compensating for some of the deficiencies in the classical doctrine. This trend notwithstanding, the tenets of the classical theory are still very visible in the succeeding approaches in the sense that “the neo-classical, as well as all other approaches to organizational theory have not discarded the tenets of the classical approach; they have merely adapted and built upon its foundations” [15]. The extent to which this has gone or become a reality in our world today, forms the core of the analysis in the next section below dealing with the neo-classical school of thought on organizational theory.

3.2. The Neo-Classical Doctrine

The human relations movement forms the core of this doctrine. In spite of its different philosophical foundation and ideological leanings, this school takes the assumption of the classical doctrine about the “pillars of organizations” as given, but then, treats them as vulnerable to the modification of people “acting independently or within the context of the informal organization” (within the organization per se) [3]. This school of thought even though taken to be an “ideal type”, has been christened as “the open model” of organization truly x-raying its actual systemic existence. It has equally been called the “collegial model” [10]. Concretely put, this school of thought laid emphasis on, and, introduced the values of behavioral sciences into the theory of organization in ways conducive to the demonstration and measurement of the impact of human actions on the pillars of the classical doctrine. This is put into context by the fact that “the neo-classical approach to organization theory gives evidence of accepting classical doctrine but super imposing on it, modifications resulting from individual behavior, and the influence of the informal groups” [3].

Talking about the adoption of the postulates of the classical doctrine by the neo-classical school of thought, the latter brought dynamism and understanding to the existence of the postulates within human organizations. For example, the monotonous and depersonalizing syndromes of the concept of division of labor were supplanted through the infusion of motivation, coordination and, leadership theories and techniques. The defects of the “scalar and functional processes” within the organizations as articulated by the classicalists, were identified and rectified by the neo-classicalists by tying human problems to the imperfections of the horizontal and vertical chains of command. In addressing the third pillar –structure of organization – which formed part of the core emphasis of the classical doctrine of organizational theory, the neo-classical theorists have delved into the provision of solution to its inherent problems within the organization in the area of relationship between “staff and line”. It has done this by emphasizing the need for harmony-rendering techniques like “participation, junior board, bottom-up management, joint-committees, recognition of human dignity and better communication” [3]. In the process, the existence and impact of informal organizations within and on the formal organizations as well as the causal factors of their emergence have been identified and thoroughly addressed. Through this it has been shown that, “in a general way the informal organization appears in response to the social need” – (the need of people to associate with others) [3].

From the perspectives of the neo-classicalists, informal organization is a “series of more personal, primary relations that emerges within and influences the structures of formal organization” [30]. Its genesis is usually caused by the geography of physical location of employees within the organization which, in turn, determines who will or will not be in what group; symmetry or otherwise of occupation; range of interests, and special issues [30]. The first three – (location, occupation and, range of interest) – factors tend to produce more lasting groups while the fourth – (special issues) – often result in the formation of rather impermanent group since the resolution of such special issues tend to breed the dissolution of the group and reversal to the more natural group forms [30]. Examples of special issues usually include some of the formal prescriptions of organizations which are usually unrealistic with regards to the way(s) human beings actually behave [30]. This informal organization, according to Dressler and Willis Jr. [31], represents “bureaucracy’s other face”. Its informal ways of behaving are not codified in any book of rules hence, the informal structure is semisecret. Thus, what it is and what it is not have been emphasized by the neo-classicalists:

Informal organization representing bureaucracy’s other face is by no means simply a negative factor, an instrumentality for circumventing bureaucratic rules and thus defeating certain aims of the bureaucracy. It often functions positively serving the official ends of the bureaucracy in the final result…..Business Corporation cannot be operated at maximum efficiency; Universities cannot be run adequately without the positive contribution of this other face [31].

It should be emphasized however, that the non-injurious existence of the informal organizations to the formal organizations depends on the relationship between them and the formal organizations. This might only be possible if the relationship between the two is based on “live and let live philosophy” as opposed to “live and let die philosophy”. In other words, “working with the informal organization involves not threatening its existence unnecessarily, listening to opinions expressed for the group by the leader, allowing group participation in decision making situation” [3]. The semi-secret nature of the informal organizations notwithstanding, they have some characteristics which include:

● Informal organizations act as agents of social control,

● Informal organizations have status and communication system peculiar to themselves not necessarily derived from the formal system,

● Survival of the informal organizations requires stable continuing relationships among the people in them etc., [3].

The neo-classical doctrine has been variously categorized by scholars depending on their perspectives and/or ideological leanings. More importantly, like its predecessor, the classical doctrine, the neo-classical doctrine has been classified into three schools of thought - human relations, organization development and, organization as a unit functioning in its environment [10] which have been variously examined.

3.2.1. Human Relations School

This, as the first of the three schools of the neo-classical doctrine considered variables which are on polar extremes to those of the classical doctrine. These variables include among others cliques, informal (group) norms, emotions, and personal motivations. In fact, the kernel of this school ironically took its roots from the 1927 (surprising) research findings of Elton Mayol and Fritz J. Roethlisberger in their series of studies (later known as the Hawthorne Experiment) [24] which has been earlier mentioned in this paper. These researchers predicated their experiment and its hypothesis on the core of Taylorism “that workers would respond like machines to changes in working conditions”.

The crux of the Hawthorne experiment was based on the alteration of the “intensity of light available to a group of randomly selected workers” and, “on the idea that when the light became brighter, production would increase and when the light became dimmer, production would decrease” [10]. In this experiment the workers were told that they would be observed as an experimental group. The conditions were fulfilled by the researchers and, production followed the trend anticipated. Even, when the lights were dimmed to near darkness, production still kept climbing [10]. This tendency surprised the researchers to the point of disconcertedness. Hence, certain reasons which till today continue to give credence to the orientation and non-manipulative creed of human relations were identified as the cause of the experimental group’s indifference to the expectation of the researchers. These reasons which accounted for the ever increasing production level of the experimental group despite the researchers’ fulfillment – (i.e. turning up and turning down of the lights) - of the research conditions show that:

● Human beings probably are not entirely machines (as claimed by Frederick Taylor and employed by Elton Mayol and F. J. Roethlisberger).

● The Western Electric Workers at the Hawthorne Plant where the experiments were carried out were responding to some motivating variables other than the lighting conditions.

● The Workers likely kept producing more in spite of poor working conditions because they knew they were being watched [10].

Thus, the scholars and analysts within the human relations school of thought laid the foundation for workers improved productivity on factors extrinsic to the formalism of the work place. But then, the human relations school’s attack on the Hawthorne experiment that “the experimental group produce more because of relations among themselves, and management”, notwithstanding, the experiment nonetheless marked the beginning of the human relations movement as we come to know it today.

Much of the emphases of human relations have been on the informal work group, what makes them work or not [10]. And, researchers in the school had equally investigated the managerial echelons as well, in addition to conducting research works on motivation and job satisfaction all of which had immensely contributed to the study of “public administration and Public Administration”. In most cases, human needs in organizations as well as the humanistic aspects of the organizations themselves, in the society have been given the pride of place. Notable among these are Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, McGregor’s human side of enterprise which are later highlighted.

Generally, the core of human relations school of thought is mainly concerned with participative decision-making, humanistic view of organizational men (i.e. workers in organizations) contrary to the manipulative, dictatorial or regimentational philosophy of the classical doctrine as espoused by some of the classicalists (e.g., Weber’s bureaucratic theory and Taylor’s scientific management). Even, the human relationists gave and still give prominence to the informal or small group aspects of workers’ existence within a broad organizational context. This has long been predicated on the view that organizational productivity could be improved or negatively affected by the impact of informal organizational relationship depending on the side turned to them by the formal organizational structure.

3.2.2. Organization Development (OD)

This is the second of the three streams within the human relations school or open model of organization. Even though, there exists a great overlap between the tenets of Organization Development (subsequently referred to as OD in this paper), to the extent of almost questioning the need for its independent existence, it has been argued that OD “can be considered a separate school of thought because it attempts to go beyond the locus of small group theory and, it is almost missionary in its zeal to democratize bureaucracies” [10]. It has been defined as “a planned organization-wide attempt directed from the top that is designed to increase organizational effectiveness and viability through calculated interventions in the active workings of the organization using knowledge from the behavioral sciences [10]. Even though, OD, since its beginning in the late 1940’s had been applied in business organizations, its influence in public bureaucracies (i.e. public administration) gained increased acceleration in the 1960’s and, since then its “perspectives have generated a substantial technology for inducing desired effects” [32]. Generally, the goals of OD are broadly humanistic and they reflect the values of open model of organizations. Thus, it has been articulated that the mission of Organization Development (OD) is to:

● Improve the individual member’s ability to get along with other members (which the field calls “interpersonal competence”).

● Legitimate human emotions in the organization.

● Increase mutual understanding among members.

● Reduce tensions.

● Enhance “team management” and “inter group co-operation”.

● Develop more effective techniques for conflict resolution through non-authoritarian and interactive methods

● Evolve less structured and more “organic” organizations [10].

The advocates of OD believed that the pursuit and achievement of the foregoing mission or goals will render organizations more effective because the basic values underlining organization development theory is choice and, that various attempts have been made to maximize this through relevant techniques which include the use of:

● Confrontation groups.

● T-groups.

● Sensitivity training.

● Attitude questionnaires.

● Third-party change agents in the form of outside Consultants.

● Data feedback and,

● The education of organizational members in the values of openness and participatory decision-making [10].

3.3. Organization as a Unit in Its Environment

This is the third school of thought in the open model or neo-classical doctrine of organizational theory. The core of this school is emphasis on the organization as a unit vis-à-vis its environment. Notable contributors as scholars or researchers to this school of thought include Chester Barnard, Philip Selznick [3], [33], [34]. Simply put, this school of thought uses the organization as a whole in assessing the reciprocal impact of the organization and the environment on one another. Philip Selznick demonstrated this in his book on the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) through which he popularized the “co-optation concept”. It was through this concept which provided for the representation of members of the environment on the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority that the TVA was able to pacify and gain support of the initially hostile and unfriendly environment in which it found itself as an organization at that point in time. The hallmark of this concept was “a give and take” philosophy.

This school of thought has had a disproportionate impact on public administration because of its concern with the public (i.e. the environment) and its political relationship with the organization. Thus, the body of literature in this school of thought has been mainly concerned with the problems of public administration since the environment is indispensable to the success or otherwise of any organization within it.

3.4. Classical to Neo-classical Doctrine: Other Theoretical Efforts

Other theoretical efforts have been made to put into perspective the transformations which have taken place within organizations as a result of the paradigm changes associated with the developments concerning the theory of organization right from the classical period. These have been manifested concerning variables that are indispensable to the success or failure of our organizations over the time. The dichotomous explication of the concept of leadership in organization which even though, has long remained a dominant feature of all organizations, has clearly put into a clearer perspective the consequences of the evolution of organization theory over the years for our organizations and requisite workers’ morale and productivity [35]. This work has actually shown the effects of the paradigm shifts associated with the theoretical movement on the concept of leadership and its place in our organizations vis-à-vis the place of the individuals within them.

In his classical work “the human side of the enterprise”, Douglas McGregor [35], examines the concept of the leadership using theories X and Y which over the years “have become such memorable theoretical constructs because they appear to be such polar opposites” [36]. The concept of Theory X (Dictatorial/regimental leadership or view of man) and Theory Y (Democratic or Liberalized view of man/employees in organization) form the core of Douglas McGregor’s work-“The Human side of Enterprise” [35]. Without doubt, this work at its inception represented one of the products of the then contemporary research in Personnel Management and organization theory. It emphasizes the humanistic side of organization’s environment. And, in it, McGregor criticized the dictatorial core of traditional theory of personnel management in relations to man’s existence within the organizational environment. He called the traditional theory of personnel management THEORY X which saw only THE MANAGER as an “active agent for motivating people, controlling their actions, modifying their behaviour to fit the needs of the organization: (Ibid.). From the perspective of McGregor, THEORY X has a pessimistic view of human nature. It views man as indolent, self-centered and, resistant to change and thus, must be repressed or forced to accept responsibility. This theory emphasizes nothing than “Management by direction and control”. In criticizing or condemning the THEORY X view of man (within the organizational environment) as archaic in terms of contemporary developments within organizational environment, McGregor utilized Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as the base [37]. This hierarchy which is shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Figure showing the pyramidal explanation of Maslow Theory OF motivation)

From the perspective of McGregor, the philosophy of management by direction and control which forms the core of Theory X regardless of whatever form it takes, is inadequate not only because of its regimental nature but also due to the fact that the human needs on which it relies are today unimportant motivators of behavior [35]. As a matter of fact, according to McGregor, “direction and control are essentially useless in motivating people whose important needs are social and egotistic”.

As a result of this, McGregor emphasized the need for managers to shift from THEORY X (regimental/dictatorial and management by direction and control) to THEORY Y (democratic/liberal view of man). This line of thought or view expressed by McGregor finds solace in the fact that THEORY Y is the “process primarily of creating opportunities, releasing potential, removing obstacles, encouraging growth, providing guidance” [35]. Thus, the goal of THEORY Y from his perspective is to create a humanistic environment where people can achieve their own goals best by directing their own efforts towards organizational objectives.

The core of THEORY Y, according to this scholar, could be practically implemented in organization through “job enlargement, delegation of authority, decentralized responsibilities and participatory management etc.” [35]. Generally, within the context of his work McGregor strived to create “a healthy organization by allowing for maximum growth of human potential through a realistic understanding of human motivation and a fostering of a democratic organizational environment conducive to the development of individual capabilities” [35].

As earlier explained in the preceding preamble, McGregor’s work is nothing but an intellectual explication of the archaism of traditional theory (i.e. theory X) of personnel management due to its dictatorial/regimental nature and exploitative or manipulative view of man within organization and, the necessity to adopt a more dynamic and liberal view (Theory Y) of man within the organizational set up. A comparative perusal of both Theories (X and Y) would reveal the polarity between the two in terms of relevance or otherwise to contemporary position of man within the organizational set up.

3.4.1. Theory X

THEORY X view or conception of management’s task in harnessing or tapping human energy to organizational requirements can be propositionally trichotomized thus:

(1) Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise – e.g. money, materials, equipment and, people – in the interest of economic ends.

(2) With respect to PEOPLE, this (i.e. organizing the elements of productive enterprise) is a process of DIRECTING their efforts, motivating them, controlling their actions, modifying their behaviour to fit the needs of the organization.

(3) Without this active intervention by management, people would be passive – even resistant – to organizational needs. They must therefore be persuaded, rewarded, punished, (and) controlled. Their activities must be directed [35].

In addition to this trichotomy, other widespread beliefs (and views of man) which form the core of this conventional theory X (of personnel management) include the following:

(4) The average man is by nature indolent – he works as little as possible.

(5) He (i.e. the average man) lacks ambition, dislikes responsibility and prefers to be led.

(6) He is inherently self-centered, indifferent to organizational needs.

(7) He is by nature resistant to change.

(8) He is gullible, not very bright, the ready dupe of the charlatan (i.e. a fake) and the demagogue [35].

According to McGregor these beliefs or views, form the core of “conventional structures, managerial policies, and practices. And conventional organizational programs have long been reflecting these propositions and assumptions. In highlighting how these beliefs have affected conventional organizational structures and policy orientations with respect to their (organizations) view of man, McGregor explained that management – (using these assumptions as guides,) - has conceived of a range of possibilities between two extreme approaches (hard and/or soft approaches). He explained that managements which share the theory X view of man and its tenets in carrying out the imperatives of this dictatorial / regimental or manipulative theory have been found to adopt either of the extreme approaches [35].

Within the confines of the hard approach, there exist” methods of directing behavior involve coercion and threat (usually disguised), close supervision, tight controls over behaviors” [35]. But then, this approach is not without costs because, force which underlies it cannot but breed counter-forces, restriction of output, antagonism, militant unionism, subtle but effective sabotage of management objective. This approach is difficult and usually ineffective in times of full employment. On the other extreme is the soft approach, the methods - (direction) - of which involve permissiveness (on the part of the management), satisfying people’s demands, and achieving harmony in an attempt to make the employees tractable and accept direction. But then, part of the highlighted shortcomings of this approach range from its breeding of abdication of management to harmony, indifferent performance to expectation of more benefits (by employees) in return for less contribution [35].

3.4.1.1. Inadequacies of Theory X View of Man and Human Nature

This whole set of beliefs - (items 1-8 in the immediate preceding section 3.4.1 above) - about man and human nature which form the core of traditional/conventional theory (X) of Personnel Management has been challenged as inadequate by the emerging research findings within the Social Sciences. While the Social Scientist does not deny that human behavior in Industrial Organization today is approximately what management perceives it to be, he is equally pretty sure that this behavior is not a consequence of human’s inherent nature but, a consequence of the nature of industrial organizations, a consequence of management philosophy, policy and practice with which such a man lives [35]. Thus, while McGregor claimed that THEORY X is based on mistaken notions about man and its causes and effects on human behaviors within the organizational set-up. That is, the conventional assumptions of theory X about the human side of enterprise are inadequate [35]. The inadequacy of the conventional assumption or approach is better exemplified by a consideration of the subject of “motivation”. McGregor highlighted this inadequacy of (Theory X) conventional assumption about the human side of enterprise using Abraham Maslow’s theory of motivation as a base [35].

The hierarchy of needs postulated by Maslow takes off from physiological, to security-safety, to social or sense of belonging, to self-esteem/ego to self actualization needs (see the pyramidal explanation of this hierarchy above) and another stage which he later called meta-motivation. According to Abraham Maslow’s theory “man is a wanting animal and, as soon as one of his needs is satisfied, another appears in its place. This process is unending as it continues from birth to death” [35]. Man’s needs are organized in a series of levels – a hierarchy of importance starting at the lower level with the:

● Physiological needs: These are the needs concerned with the basic biological functions of the human body e.g. eating and sleeping. This is followed by:

● Safety-Security needs: needs concerned with protecting the organism from harm, both physical and psychological. Following this need is:

● Belonging/Social Needs: The need to associate with one’s own kind, social interaction, love, acceptance, group membership. This need is followed by:

● Self Esteem/Ego (Status) Need: The need to feel important or to separate one’s status from other comparable individuals’ feelings of self-worth and self-importance; for the deserved respect of one’s fellows. This need is followed by:

Self-Actualization (Fulfillment) Needs: The need to reach one’s ultimate goals in life: the need to fulfill one’s own destiny.

The need hierarchy that forms the core of Maslow’s theory rests on two fundamental propositions:

1. That unsatisfied needs motivate behaviour and

2. As a particular need becomes largely satisfied, the next level of need becomes the primary motivator. In short a satisfied need is no longer a motivator of behavior).

Due to their nature the higher order needs will likely be less satisfied than lower order ones for most people. Generally, explained McGregor, “when the physiological needs are reasonably satisfied, needs (safety/security) at the next higher level begin to dominate man’s behavior – to motivate him. In other words, the higher needs do not become motivators until the lower ones have been reasonably satisfied. However, one needs to ask the question that: How is Abraham Maslow’s theory relevant to McGregor’s view of human side of enterprise and his rejection (as inadequate) of the classical core of Theory X view about the nature of man? Answer to this question is found in McGregor’s few comments about motivation which provide the link between his view of man and Maslow’s theory of motivation thus:

The deprivation of physiological needs has behavioral consequences. The same is true – although less well recognized – of deprivation of higher-level needs. The man whose needs for safety, association, independence, or status are thwarted is sick (just as surely a person suffering from severe dietary deficiency is sick). And his sickness will be mistaken if we attribute his resultant passivity, his hostility, his refusal to accept responsibility to his inherent “human nature”. These forms of behavior are symptoms of illness – of deprivation of his social and egoistic needs.” [35].

Equally, the person whose lower level needs are satisfied is no longer motivated to satisfy those needs again because they (i.e. the satisfied needs) no longer exist. This constitutes a poser in McGregor’s view to the management (relying on theory X). Because the management often asks: Why aren’t people more productive? We pay good wages, provide good working conditions, and have excellent fringe benefits and safety employment. Yet people do not seem to be willing to put forth more than minimum effort.” McGregor explained the indifference of the workers to the management (despite the provision of the above) thus:

The fact that management has provided for these physiological and safety needs has shifted the motivational emphasis to the social and perhaps to the egoistic needs. Unless there are opportunities at work to satisfy these higher level needs, people will be deprived; and their behavior will reflect this deprivation. Under such conditions, if management continues to focus its attention on physiological needs, its efforts are bound to be ineffective because by making possible the satisfaction of low-level needs, management has deprived itself of the ability to use as motivators the devices – (rewards, promises, incentives, or threats and other coercive devices) - on which conventional theory (x) has taught it (i.e. management) to rely [35].

Taking this into consideration, McGregor condemned the conventional THEORY (X) of Personnel Management in its totality regardless of whether it is adopted through a HARD or SOFT approach. Its (Theory X) philosophy of Management by Direction and Control is inadequate and in complete dissonance with the reality of modern organization’s environment.

The philosophy of management by direction and control (that underlies the core of theory x) – regardless of whether it’s hard or soft – is inadequate to motivate because the human needs on which this approach (theory x) relies are today unimportant motivators of behaviors. Direction and control are essentially useless in motivating people whose important needs are social and egoistic. People deprived of opportunities to satisfy at work the needs which are now important to them, BEHAVE exactly as we might predict – with indolence, passivity, resistance to change, lack of responsibility, willingness to follow the demagogue, unreasonable demands for economic benefits [35].

Concluding his Jettisoning of Theory X view of the human side of Enterprise and its core, Management by Direction and control, Douglas McGregor asserted thus:

Management by direction and control – (whether implemented with the hard, the soft, or the firm but fair approach) – fails under today’s conditions to provide effective motivation of human efforts toward organizational objectives. It fails because DIRECTION and CONTROL are useless methods of motivating people whose physiological and safety needs are reasonably satisfied and whose social, egoistic, and self-fulfillment needs are predominant(ly) yet to be satisfied) [35].

As a result of this, McGregor emphasized and explained the need for a different THEORY - based on more adequate assumptions about human nature and human motivation - regarding the task of managing people. He called this theory, THEORY Y.

3.4.2. Theory Y

This theory is almost a direct opposite of Theory X because it has a more optimistic and liberal or democratic view about man and human nature. The core of THEORY (Y) as propounded by McGregor includes the following:

● Management is responsible for organizing the elements of productive enterprise – (e.g. money, materials, equipment, people etc.) – in the interest of economic ends.

● People are not by nature passive or resistant to organizational needs. They have become so as a result of experience in organizations.

● The motivation, the potential for development, the capacity for assuming responsibility, the readiness to direct behavior toward organizational goals are present in people. Management does not put them there. It is a responsibility of management to make it possible for people to recognize and develop these human characteristics for themselves.

● The essential task of management is to arrange organizational conditions and methods of operation so that people can achieve their own goals best by directing their own efforts toward organizational objectives”.

Theory (Y) is symmetrical to what Peter Drucker called “Management by Objectives (MBO) because it brings about a process primarily concerned with creating opportunities, releasing potentials, removing obstacles, encouraging growth and providing guidance for employees or people in the organizations. And, it does not involve the abdication of management, the absence of leadership, the lowering of standards, or the other characteristics usually associated with the “hard approach” under Theory X.

3.4.2.1. Difficulties facing the Adoption of Theory Y

In spite of the participatory and liberalized nature of theory Y, its adoption faces some problems due to the fact that the conservative, regimental, pessimistic and manipulative strands of theory X (i.e. conventional organization theory) regarding human nature and structures of organization seemed to have permeated all the nerves of organizational set up. McGregor [35] summed this up thus: “the conditions imposed by conventional organizational theory and by the approach of scientific management for the past half century have tied men to limited jobs which do not utilize their capabilities, have discouraged the acceptance of responsibility, have encouraged passivity have eliminated meaning from work”.

This being the case, McGregor explained that “change in the direction of Theory Y will be slow, and it will require extensive modification of the attitudes of management and workers alike”. However, despite the obstacles or difficulties facing the reformative adoption of Theory Y, McGregor highlighted the following innovative ideas which are being variously applied today as part of the characteristics of THEORY Y:

● Decentralization and Delegation: These are ways of freeing people from the too close control of conventional organization, giving them a degree of freedom to direct their own activities, to assume responsibility and importantly, to satisfy their egoistic needs.

● Job enlargement: This is the encouragement of the acceptance of responsibility at the bottom of the organization; it provides opportunity for satisfying social and egoistic needs.

● Participation and Consultative Management: This encourages the giving of opportunity to workers or employees to have some voice in decisions that affect them. It provides opportunities for the satisfaction of social and egoistic needs.

These put together, makes Theory Y consistent with the good and repression-free society. Hence, “few public administrators would deny the importance or worth of McGregor’s idealistic “new consensus” as expressed in THEORY Y to the landscape of organizations today which, in itself has been dictated and would continue to be dictated by the evolution of its theory and its attendant paradigm changes.

It should be stressed however, that theory Y in spite of its positive attributes is not a technique or style of management without its cost and consequences for managers and leaders applying it in their organizations. In other words, the adoption of Theory Y as a technique or style of management in organizations involves opportunity cost in terms of the reactions of the organizational environment and people within such organizations.

The likely cost and consequences faced by managers and leaders in organizations and political settings seeking to evoke the principles of Theory Y have been clearly articulated by Crockett [38] in the conclusion of his work on team building thus:

The so-called Theory Y style of management – management by participation – is neither soft headed nor “easy”. It is much easier to avoid confrontation by issuing orders. It is easier to avoid personal involvement and conflict by smoothing over surface. Theory Y management is not for the executive who likes surface serenity and obsequiousness. Theory Y management is for those managers who are willing to take the gut punishment of a truly tough-minded approach to management. It is for those who believe that conflict can be handled best by confronting it openly and for those who understand that real commitment of their people can be secured only by their continuing participation in making plans and setting objectives.

The foregoing notwithstanding, it is arguable to some extent that the opportunity cost and consequences which may be likely involved in the full or wholesale adoption of either Theory X or Theory Y as a technique or style of management may have clearly influenced the thinking of some scholars that both theories may be mixed for a better organizational performance and systemic existence. Thus, Shafritz, Hyde and Rosenbloom [36], clearly stated that “it is a poor manager that would adopt in toto either Theory X or Theory Y. Most work situations require a mix rather than simplistic acceptance of one construct or another”.

4. Critiques of the Doctrines: From Classical to the Newer Traditions

The supplantation of the classical doctrine by neo-classical doctrine occasioned by the philosophical outlook of the latter has not been able to insulate the neo-classical doctrine itself from being supplanted by other more encompassing perspectives in terms of what organizations are or what they should be. In other words, the inadequacies of the neo-classical doctrine of organizational theory have brought about newer thinking and philosophical outlooks vis-à-vis the place of organizations and the people working within them today and, who will continue to work within them in the future. The neo-classical theory of organization has been variously attacked or criticized. Scott [3] summarized one of such criticisms thus:

The neo-classical school of organizational theory has been called bankrupt. (Its) criticisms range from “human relations is a tool for cynical puppeteering of people”, to “human relations is nothing more than a trifling body of empirical and descriptive information”. Like the classical theory, the neo-classical doctrine suffers from incompleteness, a shortsighted perspective, and lack of integration among the many facets of human behavior studied by it.

The attempt to rectify these inadequacies regarding the positions of human beings within organizations led to the genesis of modern organization theory which is a variant of the newer tradition which, though could be classified as neo-classical, diverged from the latter in terms of orientation and focus. The modern organization Theorists share the philosophy that the “only meaningful way to study organization is to study it as a system” [3]. This orientation, coupled with conceptual analytical base and reliance on empirical research data represents the distinctive qualities of modern organization theory. Through its philosophy of studying organization as a system, modern organization theory shifts the conceptual level of organization study above the classical and neo-classical theories by asking a range of questions which were not seriously considered by the two other theories. But the, theorists or researchers within this paradigmatic influence are far from intellectual consensus or ideological melting-pot concerning the positions of organizations in the modern era hence they have asserted that “modern organization theory is in no way a unified body of thought. Each writer and researcher has his special emphasis when he considers the system. Perhaps, the most evident unifying thread in the study of systems is the effort to look at the organization in its totality” [3].

Generally, the core of system analysis of organization includes “the parts, the interactions, the processes, and the goals of the system”. These variables have been or could be regarded as the ingredients of modern organization theory. The first ingredient - (i.e. the parts) – could be sub-divided into five components of “individual”, “formal structure”, “informal organization”, “status and role patterns” and, “physical setting”. And, there exists certain relational patterns among these various components with mutual modifications of expectancies on the part of those interacting:

An interactional pattern exists between the individual and the informal group. This interaction can be conveniently discussed as the mutual modification of expectancies. The informal organization has demands which it makes on members in terms of anticipated forms of behavior, and the individual has expectancies of satisfaction he hopes to derive from association with people or the job. Both these sets of expectancies interact, resulting in individual modifying his behavior to accord with the demands of the group, and the group, perhaps, no defying what it expects from an individual because of the impact of his personality on group norms [3].

The understanding of this interactional pattern which underlines the core of modern organization theory is symmetrical to that dictated by status and role concepts. Through the role concept, “modern organization attempts to accommodate specialization within a hierarchical framework” [5] because a hierarchy is:

A system of roles – the roles of subordination and super-ordination – arranged in a chain of that role 1 is subordinate to role 2; 2 id super-ordinate to 1 but subordinate to 3; and so forth until a role is reached that is subordinate to no other role (but perhaps to a group of people, such as a board of directors or an electorate). A role is an organized pattern of behaviour in accordance with the expectations of others….Roles are cultural items and are learned. The roles of subordinate and superior (i.e., man-boss roles) are likewise learned cultural patterns of behaviour transmitted from generation to generation [5].

This scholar went further to analyze the centrality of hierarchical roles in modern organization and its environment because “they have strong charismatic elements” on the basis of which “current formulations of bureau organization conceptualize organization entirely in terms of hierarchy” [5] thus:

● The person in each hierarchical position is told what to do by the person in the hierarchical above him, and by no one else. He in turn, and he alone, tells his subordinate what to do. They and they alone, do the same for their subordinates. These instructions establish the division of work, namely the organization. The authority to do anything is cascaded down in this way, and only in this way, by the process of delegation.

● Each subordinate is guided (supervised or directed) in carrying out these instructions by his superior and no one else, who, in turn, is guided in this guiding by his superior and no one else, etc.

● Each superior “controls” his subordinates in carrying out the instructions by holding them responsible for compliance with the instructions or with performance standards associated with them. The subordinates are responsible to their superior, and no one else; he, in turn, is responsible to his superior and no one else; etc. Thus all authority comes from the top and is cascaded down by progressive delegations, while responsibility comes from the bottom and is owed to the next superior and to no one else [5].

This Theorist’s position can be located within the theoretical construct and thinking of Parson [9] that:

In the case of organization [as variously defined] the value system [inherent in the definitions] must by definition be a sub-value system of a higher-order one, since the organization is always defined as a subsystem of a more comprehensive social system. Two conclusions follow: First, the value system of the organization must imply basic acceptance of the more generalized values of the super-ordinate system-unless it is a deviant organization not integrated into the super-ordinate system. Secondly, on the requisite level of generality, the most essential feature of the value system of an organization is the evaluative legitimation of its place or “role” in the super-ordinate system. A more familiar approach to the structure of an organization is through its constituent personnel and roles they play in functioning. Thus we ordinarily think of an organization as having some kind of “management” or “administration” – a group of people carrying some kind of special responsibility for organization’s affairs, usually formulated as “policy formation” or “decision-making”. Then under the control of this top group we would conceive of various operative groups arranged in “line” formation down to the lowest in line of authority.

According to modern organization theory, all parts of the system are of strategic importance and, are inter related thus they are woven into a configuration called the organizational system predicated on hierarchical structure. However, this interrelatedness would be meaningless within the confines of system analysis unless a linkage could be made between the parts or, the processes by which the interaction is achieved are identified. In doing this, the modern organization theorists have “pointed to three other linking activities which appear to be universal to human system of organized behavior and, these processes are communication, balance and decision-making” [3]. The summation of the meaning, relevance and importance of these processes, did not spare the neo-classicalists regarding their neglect of the communication process in terms of analysis. In the process it has been articulated that “communication is mentioned often in neo-classical theory, but the emphasis is on description of forms of communication activity, i.e., formal-informal, vertical-horizontal, line-staff. Communication, as a mechanism which links the segments of the system together, is overlooked by way of much considered analysis” [3].

In the same vein, the modern organization theory trichotomized the goals of organization by articulating that “organization has three goals which may be either intermeshed or independent ends in themselves. They are growth, stability and, interaction” [3]. And, that modern organization theory can be likened to general system theory because they both study:

● The parts (individuals) in aggregates and the movement of individuals into and out of the system.

● The interaction of individuals with the environment found in the system.

● The interaction among individuals in the system.

● General growth and stability problems of the system [3].

This near symbiosis or symmetry in terms of what they both study – (organization as an integrated whole) - modern organization theory and general system theory differ in terms of generality because the former focuses generally on human organizations. Not only this, it has been articulated that modern organization theory has great potentials in providing good understanding to the concept of organizations within human society. Its usefulness to the growth of knowledge and understanding of organization has been articulated thus:”modern organization theory represents a frontier of research which has greater significance for management. The potential is great because it offers the opportunity for uniting what is valuable in classical theory with the social and natural sciences into a systematic and integrated conception of human organization” [3].

This notwithstanding however, the theory has been shown to have various difficulties and flaws. Some of these which are traceable to the idiosyncrasies of the theorists in this school of thought are summed up thus:

Modern organization theorists tend to pursue their pet points of view, suggesting they are part of system theory, but not troubling to show by what mystical means they arrive at this conclusion. The irony of it all is that a field (modern organization theory) dealing with systems has, indeed, little system……modern organization is in part a product of the past, system analysis is not a new idea. Further, modern organization theory relies for supporting data on microcosmic research studies, generally drawn from journals of past (longer) years. – (This raises the question of just how much of modern organization theory is after all modern) [3].

In spite of the differences in orientations and philosophical points of analytical departure by the various organizational theorists from the classical beginning on the subject matter – organization – of their respective focus, the end result of their efforts seemed to have yielded itself to a new consensus. This is because of the fact that “all the varied schools of organizational analysis now seemed to be agreed that organizations are systems and, indeed, they are open systems” [3]. This in itself necessitates the comparison of the classical doctrine (closed model) with the neo-classical doctrine (open model) and, their subsequent synthesis explainable through the concept of “newer tradition” both of which are subsequently discussed one after the other in the next two sub-sections below.

Figure 2. Figure showing the Models of Organization Theory

Figure 3. Figure showing the evolution of organization and its theories

4.1. Comparison of the Classical Doctrine (Closed Model) and the Neo-classical Doctrine (Open Model) of Organization: The Essential Differences

The essential differences between the closed and open models of organizational theory may be reduced to four: “(1) perception of organizational environment, (2) perceptions of the nature of man, (3) perceptions of the use of manipulations in organizations and, (4) perceptions of the role and significance of organizations in society” [10]. While the closed model is predicated on a stable, routine environment; the open model is predicated on an unstable environment full of uncertainties and surprises. In all its ramifications, the closed model maintains pessimistic, manipulative, dictatorial, regimental and subordinate views of man in organizations while the open model maintains humanistic, participatory views of man in organizations and, organization per se along the above identified variables. In fact, the closed model assumes a monolithic rationality of organization while the open model assumes a non-rationality posture. In other words, the closed model assumes a Theory X view of people within organizations while the open model assumes the Theory Y perspective. This brief comparison necessitates the need for a possible synthesis of the two doctrines in spite of their obvious differences. This is the subject matter of discourse in the next section to which we now turn.

4.2. The Synthesis of Close and Open Models of Organizations: The Newer Tradition

The obvious differences and diametrical oppositions between these models notwithstanding, they can still be synthesized. Both models, regardless of the terrains of their different environments expect the organization to adapt to such environments whether stable or not. The synthesis of the two models is predicated on three very reasonable assumptions: “(1) Organizations and their environments can and do change, (2) Organizations and the people in them act to survive and, (3) Organizations and the people in them can and do learn from mistakes” [3].

In totality, the core of organizational theory and its evolution over the years, as espoused by the various scholars or theorists can be understood within the context of certain models or schematic explanations. Two of such are provided below. However, in providing these models or schematic explanations, it should be stressed that the said provision is made with a deep understanding and consequences of the intellectual philosophical and / or ideological reservation over the subject matter of focus addressed by these models. The issue of which of the theorists preceded the other in terms of historical reference or paradigmatic influence is equally noted as a subject of discourse that will continue to be eclectic in terms of possible consensus or embracement in the course of pursuit of knowledge and expansion of its frontiers. The models are equally provided without being unmindful of the contestation or disputation of this trend or stages of evolution in terms of the order of precedence among the scholars or theorists right away from the classical period to date which, have been variously articulated and documented. The intention here is just to show a graphical illustration rather than attempt the foisting of any view on the renders on a subject which has long remained controversial and will probably continue to be so.

Without prejudice to the chronology of the discussion in this paper up to this point, it is found appropriate at this point, as a possible recap to synoptically analyze the respective positions of the organizational theorists as originally articulated by them. This is done in the next section.

5. The Organization Theorists: Their Foundational Articulations

The views of early organization Theorists were dictated by the conditions of their times. These views equally followed the chronology of events and periods of societal developments and evolution all of which had various consequences for the thinking of the Theorists in terms of the existence of human organizations and the people working within them. In terms of chronological order, even though, it may have been disputed depending on the historical views and antecedents of the contributors, Shafritz and Whitbeck [15], identified Adam Smith as the foremost exponent of classical doctrine of organization theory through his 1776 book; “The wealth of Nations” [18], in which he gave primacy to the issue of “division of labor” linked with the optimal production of a pin factory. Specifically, these scholars provided the chronology thus:

● Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations – (Division of labor).

● Frederick Winslow Taylor: Principles of Scientific Management.

● Max Weber: Bureaucracy (Bureaucratic Theory).

● Mary Parker Follett: The Giving of Orders.

● Henri Fayol: General Principles of Management.

● Luther Gurlick: Notes on the theory of Organization.

● James D. Mooney: The scalar principles.

● Herbert A. Simon: Proverbs of Administration.

● Herbert A. Simon and James March: Theory of Bureaucracy.

● Talcott Parson: Suggestion for a sociological approach to the theory of Organization.

● Philip Selznick: Foundations of theory of Organization.

● William G. Scott: Organization theory; An overview and appraisal.

● Charles Perrow: The glorious history of Organization theory.

Within this chronology, Adam Smith, Frederick Taylor, Max Weber, Mary Parker Follet, Henri Fayol, Luther Gurlick and James Mooney were classified as the Classicalists. While Herbert Simon, James March, Talcott Parson and Philip Selznick were classified as Neo-classicalists, William Scott and Charles Perrow were regarded as system or modern organization Theorists [15].

This categorization dictated and was dictated in turn by the various paradigm changes and the various analytical orientations within them. This explains the typification of the classical organizational theory as the first of its kind that was regarded as traditional and, which will continue to be the base of subsequent theories of organizations. It was further claimed that the classical theories were regarded as classical and traditional because they have been supplanted.

Even though, Shafritz and Whitbeck [15] did not claim in the real sense of it, that classicalism presupposes total or complete supplantation, we tend to disagree with them in this paper, that the honor of being acclaimed “classical” is not bestowed upon anything or phenomenon until it has been supplanted. This disagreement hinges on dual foundations. The first concerns the scholars’ notion of classicalism while the second concerns their idea that classical theories of organization have been supplanted. To start with, our own idea of something classical presupposes the holistic impact of such things. If any phenomenon or anything is classical, we would argue that such a thing or phenomenon has gained a deep-seated historical root and recognition and, that such a thing has become a catechism, a treatise and, that it has become the nerve centre for the anatomical make up of knowledge about what the phenomenon stands for or describes. These are no less true for our view of classical organizational theories.

The second point of our disagreement concerns the idea of classical organizational theory being supplanted. Taking the word “supplanted” to mean a total replacement or neutralization, we would argue to some extent, that the core of classical organizational theories notably Weber’s bureaucratic theory, still guide the contemporary organizations in terms of set up and internal dynamics. In fact, James Mooney’s scalar principle [39] is still a watchword within the operational landscape of organizations today irrespective of the planetary phenomenon of globalization and its accompanying supersonic transformation in information technology and the erosion of the powers of the states and organizations within them to take in most cases, independent decisions or actions due to the borderless nature of today’s world.

The issue of “unity of command” and its accompanying variables of Henri Fayol’s fame is still very much relevant today as does the “giving of orders” popularized by Mary Parker Follett [40]. Not only this the concept of “division of labor” respectively espoused at different times in history, by Adam Smith, Max Weber, Frederick Taylor, Henri Fayol, Luther Gurlick, continues to serve as the wheeling force for present day organizations’ efforts towards efficiency, improved workers’ morale and increased productivity [18], [16], [19], [20], [21], [25]. This goes to show that the classical theories are still very much relevant and dominant concerning today’s organizational society [2].

Our contestation of the views of these scholars concerning the classicalism of the classical doctrine of organization theory notwithstanding, we still find the chronology provided by these scholars, very interesting and worthy of perusal for contemporary documentation for the sake of further expansion of the frontiers of knowledge on the subject matter of this paper. Thus, what is done in this regard forms the contents of the sub-sections of this section below.

5.1. The Classical Organizational Theories/Theorists

Frederick Winslow Taylor’s “principles of scientific management” (1911) followed that of Adams Smith (1776) by ways of documentation and assumed preeminence vis-à-vis the issue and subject matter of organizational theory and the view of people working within the organizations [19], [18].

5.1.1. Fredrick Winslow Taylor: Scientific Management

Frederick Taylor, who has been regarded as the acknowledged father of scientific management, predicated his scientific analysis on the workers in a Pin Factory. He posited that factory workers could be much more productive if their work was scientifically designed. He pioneered the development of time-motion studies and his scientific management was premised on the notion that there was “one best way” to accomplish any given task. The synopsis of the core of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management shows that

● Scientific management sought to increase output by discovering the faster, most efficient and least fatiguing production methods. Once the “one best way to do the job is found, Taylor argued such a way should be imposed by the manager / management on the organization.

● This line of thought seemed to have permeated the operational nerves of all organizations most especially in the classical period during which institutional and structural view which reified organizations were enjoying high – noon of intellectual embracement.

● Taylorism had a pessimistic perception of man within the organization. To this he tied the idea of soldiering i.e., “intentional going slow at work”.

● Taylorism equally blamed the indifference and lack of zeal on the part of management as conducive to workers’ soldiering attitude.

● Taylorism brought into the open the facts that workers soldier in order to safe their job – and they detest efficiency, increased productivity to safe their jobs.

● Taylorism fervently believed in the increase of output and efficiency and the adoption of necessary mechanism or tools for/of efficiency.

● Taylor in his time only recognized the workers / employees as individuals, because he did not recognize the existence of the unions. Nothing is fixed in taylorism. All the elements of Taylorism are an evolution.

● There can be no scientific management unless there is a complete mental revolution on the part of the workmen working unless it as to their duties toward themselves and toward their employers, and a complete mental revolutions in the outlook of the employers toward their duties, toward themselves, and toward their working men. Until this treat mental change takes place, scientific management does not exist.

● Under scientific management, the initiatives of the workmen, their hand work, their good will, their best endeavour are obtained with absolute regularity [15], [19].

5.1.2. Henri Fayol: (General Principles of Management)

Henri Fayol while theorizing “about all of the elements necessary to organize and manage a major corporation” laid emphasis on division of work; authority - (i.e. right to give orders and exact obedience); unity of command; unity of direction, discipline; scalar chain (authority); equity and; centralization [15]. As a matter of fact, “Fayol’s theoretical contributions have been widely recognized and, his work is also fully considered as significant as that of Frederick Taylor” [15].

According to Fayol, division of work (labour) and its attendant specialization “belong to the natural order; it is observable in the animal world, where the more highly developed the creature the more highly differentiated its organs; it is observable in human societies where the more important the body corporate, the closer is the relationship between structure and function” [15]. These theorists went further in their analysis of the general principles of management to contend that:

The object of division of work is to produce more and better work with the same effort. The worker always on the same part, the manager concerned always with the same matters, acquire an ability, sureness, accuracy which increase their output…Division of work permits of reduction in the number of objects to which attention and effort must be directed and has been recognized as the best means of making use of individuals and of groups of people. It is not merely applicable to technical work, but without exception to all work involving a more or less considerable number of people and demanding abilities of various types, and it results in specialization of functions and separation of powers. Although its advantages are universally recognized and although possibility of progress is inconceivable without the specialized work of learned men and artists, yet division of work has its limits which experience and sense of proportion teach us may not be exceeded [15].

While conceptualizing authority as “the right to give orders and exact obedience” within an organization or management, Fayol treated “responsibility as a corollary of authority” by contenting that “authority is not to be conceived apart from responsibility” which must be infused by good leaders in organization into those around him within such organizations [15]. He posited that authority must be safeguarded in organizations “against possible abuses” and “weaknesses on the part of managers”. However, this safeguard can only be ensured through the “personal integrity and high moral standard” of the higher manager [15]. These management variables and principles – (division of work; authority; responsibility and, discipline) are indispensably related to the other principles of management of: unity of command; unity of direction; scalar chain; equity; centralization; order; equity; stability of tenure of personnel; initiative and; spirit de corps, which form the core of Henri Fayol’s work–(General Principles of Management) [20], [21].

5.1.3. Mary Parker Follett: (The Giving of Orders)

Mary Parker Follet’s work first published in the early 1920s, frowns at the practice of dictatorial giving of orders within any administrative/organizational setting. Instead of draconian orders, there should be joint-goal setting (i.e. participatory management) through which the order giving could be reconciled and integrated with order receiving, thereby lessening friction or conflict between the “Giver” and “Receiver” of orders – (i.e., resolving conflict between the dissociated paths) [40].

In fact, the issue of giving and receiving of orders within organization which has deep-seated historical roots traceable in part to the pioneering works of Mary Parker Follett, remains an important characteristic of today’s’ organizational world and, one issue that can easily thwart the peace and tranquility of any organization’s setting and environment if not properly handled. It is a concept that came into being as one of the principles of organizational management and technique through the prophetic theoretical thinking and construct of Mary Parker Follet at the early part of the twentieth century. As a matter of fact, Shafritz and Whitbeck [15] clearly articulated the fact that:

Mary Parker Follet was a Prophet before her time. Writing in the 1920s, she anticipated many conclusions of the Hawthorne experiments of the 1930s and the post World War II behavioral movement. In calling for organizations to be structured so that managers exercise “power with” as opposed to “power over” their subordinates, she was a major voice for what today would be called participatory management. Her discussion, “The Giving of Orders”, draws attention to the problems caused when superior/subordinate roles inhibit the productivity of the organization.

The core of Mary Parker Follet’s work emphasized that:

● Paternalism re-giving of others is very dangerous to business survival.

● Before anybody / management can change altitudes three things have to be done: (1) create the expected altitude (2) provide for the release of the attitude (3) augment the release response Follet emphasized that before orders come be obeyed, previous habit – patterns has to be appealed to or new ones created.

● Training of those to be controlled (by the controller) to accept control or the idea of being controlled is a sine-qua non technique to obedience of order by the controlled. Thus, giving and receiving of orders should be integrated or reconciled.

● Since an order often leaves the individual to whom it is given with two dissociated paths – (e.g. to accept or not to accept) the order giver must seek to unite these dissociated paths or integrate them. This reconciliation or integration of the dissociated paths is deterrence against internal conflict usually generated in those being order by the nature of the order.

● Giving of order usually invade the inner sanctuaries of those being ordered hence, the giving of orders should and must be reconciled with the receiving of orders. Thus, there should be a joint goal setting and giving of order (i.e. participatory Management).

● It was equally the contention of Follet that order should be depersonalized. And, that this should be so because attack on the self respect of orders receiver would automatically generate conflict and subsequent disobedience hence, a joint study of the situation is a good buffer to administrative/organizational friction.

● Face to face suggestion is better than long distance communication. And, joint-goal setting or study of situation would reduce tension associated with the giving of draconian orders.

● Orders should be given on the basis of joint agreement. This is necessary because obedience is owed to functional unity. Order should be circular and not linear in nature [15], [40].

5.1.4. Luther Gurlick: (Notes on the Theory of Organizations)

Luther Gurlick [25], in his explication of organization theory gave prominence to division of labor. Division of labor according to him is a prelude to effective organization. It is the foundation of organization and even the reason for organization. Not only this, division of labor and the specialization it offers do aid the transposition of people to civilization. He equally claimed that division of labor necessitates the need for co-ordination. Thus, he gave prominence to co-ordination of work. He emphasized that co-ordination is done in two ways as follows: (1) by organization and; (2) by dominance of ideas (joint-goal, setting or Co-operation) between the people doing the Job.

In continuation of his theoretical analysis he emphasized the fact that the establishment of a system of authority is a prelude to organization as a way of co-ordination. He equally game relevance to “span of control” by emphasizing that it is the span of control that determines the limitation or capability or otherwise of supervision. In contributing to the need to counteract the negative effect of defective hierarchy in organizations, he gave prominence to the now globally acclaimed mnemonic- POSDCORB, as representative of the functions of business and organizations executives. According to this theorist (Ibid. and; as cited in Shafritz and Whitbeck [15], POSDCORB means the following activities that form the core of the functional elements of the work of chief executives in terms of administration and management in organizations:

Planning, that is working out in broad outline the things that need to be done and methods for doing them to accomplish the purpose set for the enterprise; Organizing, that is the establishment of the formal structure of authority through which work subdivisions are arranged, defined and co-ordinated for the defined objective; Staffing, that is the whole personnel function of bringing in and training the staff and maintaining favorable conditions of work; Directing, that is the continuous task of making decisions and embodying them in specific and general orders and instructions and serving as the leader of enterprise; Co-coordinating, that is the all important duty of interrelating the various parts of the work; Reporting, that is keeping those to whom the executive is responsible informed as to what is going on, which thus includes keeping himself and his subordinates informed through records, research and inspection; Budgeting, will all that goes with budgeting in the form of fiscal planning, accounting and control.

5.1.5. James D. Mooney: (The Scalar Principle)

The core of this theorist’s work which was published in 1947 in continuation of his research on the principles of organization since his joint-publication with Alan c. Rieley in 1931 and 1939 [39], [26], [27], becomes identifiable right away by mere looking and giving of meaning to the topic – “the scalar principle”. Without doubt, we would argue that the scalar principle is a synonym for hierarchical principles or hierarchization. Mooney predicated his work on the theoretical and conceptual landscape of coordination. This theoretical thinking clearly informed his contention that “coordination must contain in its essence the supreme coordinating authority. It is equally essential to the concept of organization that there be a formal process through which this coordinating authority operates from top through entire organized body. This process is a tangible reality, observable in every organization. It appears in a form so distinct that it practically names itself” [15], [26], [27], [39].

In this works, James D. Mooney subscribes to the fact or idea that organizations are graded according to rules and, authority and, corresponding responsibility. According to him, the scalar chain or principle is a universal phenomenon and it is “the same form in organization that is sometimes called hierarchical” though, he differentiated it from the concept of hierarchy in order to avoid what he called “all definitional variants” [15]. In making this differentiation, he articulated his position as follows:

A scale means a series of steps, something graded. In organization it means the grading of duties, not according to different functions, for this involves another principle of organization, but according to degrees of authority and corresponding responsibility. For convenience we shall call this phenomenon of organization the scalar chain…. wherever we find an organization even of two people, related as superior and subordinate, we have the scalar principle. This chain constitutes the universal process of coordination, through which the supreme coordinating authority becomes effective throughout the entire structure [15].

The scalar principle is rooted on three processes/principles of its own. These are: Leadership; Delegation and; Functional Definition. According to Mooney, LEADERSHIP represents authority and the pinnacle of the Organization. It is the form that authority assumes when it enters into process. DELEGATION means the conferring of a specific authority by a higher authority. And the one to whom authority is delegated becomes responsible to the superior for doing the job but the superior remains responsible for getting the job done thus, it encourages dualism of responsibility. In other words, delegation breeds responsibility. Thus, it is indispensable in any scalar-based organization and, it should be understood that it means the conferring of authority. Mooney equally emphasized that the leader can delegate both the right of delegation and delegation of duties. And, that if and when this happens, the scalar chain is lengthened [39]. Explicating further on this, he claimed that the concept of delegation makes it possible to identify three types of leaders usually found in organizations. These are Leaders who find it easy to delegate their own authority. These leaders inherently dislike their responsibilities and the obligations they impose. Leaders of these types are not real leaders but got position of leadership either by accident or inheritance. Leaders who find it easy to delegate authority but not their own authority and responsibility. These leaders only delegate authority whenever task begins to exceed their own unaided powers. These types of leaders are referred to as “true organizers” or “born organizers”. According to this scholar, “Leaders who find it easy to delegate their own authority” and “Leaders who find it easy to delegate authority but not their own authority and responsibility” are extremes. “Leaders who would not delegate authority”. These leaders constitute the greatest obstacles sometimes insuperable by organized growth. Even though, these leaders are hard working within their own unaided power, they fail utterly as organizers because of their inability to utilize the capacity of others. Sometimes absolute physical necessity may compel them to delegate some duties, but they always try to withhold, as far as they can, the authority essential to an efficient performance of duties. According to Mooney leaders one and two are extremes that have been identified within the context of delegation. FUNCTIONAL DEFINITION is the aspect of the scalar chain/hierarchy that assigns all functions. It is through the functional definition that the leadership delegates to each subordinate his own specific task. According to James D. Mooney, functional definition is the antecedent of all functions in the organizations because it takes place before the functions are eventually assigned. It is functional definition that assigns all functions. For example, “when a superior delegates any duty to a subordinate he (i.e, the superior) defines the functions of that subordinate hence; functional definition is the end, the aim, and the finality of the entire scalar process [39], [15].

5.2. Neo-Classical Organization Theories/Theorists

Theories and Theorists under the neo-classical school of thought are direct opposites of the classical organization theories and theorists. Neo-classical theory represents a newer paradigm compared to its predecessor-the classical doctrine. Generally, the neo-classical theory is a perspective that revises or antagonizes and / or is critical of traditional (Classical) organization theory for downplaying the relevance and importance of the needs of and interactions of the organizations members. According to this school of thought, the classical organization theory enjoyed its high noon before or prior to World War II while post World War II period gave reputation and relevance to Neo-classical theory. Shafritz and Whitbeck [15] further explained / argued that the artificial nature of the classical organization theories left them vulnerable to the type of attack which the Neo-classical scholars launched on them. Not only this, the classical theories were to a large extent, intellectually rather than empirically derived. Many Neo-classicalists who have attacked the core or imperative of classical theories and theorists included Herbert Simon whose work “proverbs of administration” [41], [42] refuted the classical approach to organization theory by pointing out that the principles developed by them were inconsistent, conflicting and inapplicable to many administrative situations facing managers hence, he suggested that the so called principles were nothing more than proverbs of administration.

Generally, the central core or theme of the neo-classical organization theorists was that organizations did not and could not exist in self-contained islands isolated from the rest of society. In other words, the Neo-classical scholars rejected as untenable the reification of organizations. They criticized the unity of command notion in organization as not workable in a situation where there is specialization of function. They argued that it contradicts the notion of authority.

The works of some scholars in this school of thought puts these into perspective. Philip Selznick: “Foundations of the theory of organization” [33], while highlighting the creed of Neo-classicalism of organization theory claimed that organizations consisted of individuals whose goals and aspirations might not coincide with the formal goals of the organizations. He stressed the indispensability of informal structure/group to the formal structure of the organization. Based on this, he defined organization as rationally ordered instruments for the achievement of stated goals. He claimed that his perusal of classical organization theories reveals the woeful neglect of informal organization and their presence within the formal ones where they are indispensably important to the success of the formal structure.

This scholar actually gave credence to the impact of the environment on the organization and vice-versa and, he contended that as a result of this environmental impact, there is usually the need for co-optation, whereby the organizations would co-opt those environmental factors (people, interests) that pose serious threats to its survival. Hence, he defined co-optation as “the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy - determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence”. He further argued that co-optation tells us something about the process by which one institutional environment impinges itself upon an organization and effects changes in its leadership and policy. And, that co-optation reflects a state of tension between formal authority and social power. According to Selznick [33], [34] formal organization (e.g. the Tennessee Valley Authority-TVA) may resort to co-optation due to the need for survival. To him, co-optation may be a response to the pressure of specific centers of power involving commitment on the part of the organization of group doing the co-opting.

5.2.1. James G. March and Herbert A. Simon: “Theories of Bureaucracy

In their work [43], the authors called the classical theories or views of organizations as nothing but “machine model” of human behaviour. This Neo-classical school include other scholars like Nicholas Henry [10] who, in his article the “The threads of Organization Theory” in Public Administration and Public Affairs classified organization theory into classical and Neo-classical but using the concepts of open and close models and newer traditions. He reclassified the classical organization Theories into close model of organizational theories. Specifically, he classified and puts “Taylorism”, “Bureaucracy” and; “Administrative Management” respectively propounded by Frederick Winslow Taylor; Max Weber and Luther Gurlick into the “Close-Model school of thought”. On the same token, he classified and puts “Human Relations school of thought” – (which he claimed anteceded the “Classical school of thought” with a review that went as far as to the era of Henry de Saint Simon and Comtean period); “Organization Development –participation and humanistic management through sensitivity training and join-goal setting” and; “Organization as a unit in its environment which served the need for cooperation” under the “Open-model school of thought” while he categorized the synthesis of “close and open models” as the “Newer Tradition”.

Going back to the analytical perusal of organization theory by Shafritz and Whitbeck [15] the neo-classicalists identified another school of thought – (System Theory) - as a corollary of Neo-classical school. However, they were silent as to whether it is anything other than Neo-classical theory of organization. They did not label it hence; one can argue to some extent that their silence presupposes that the system theory perspective is a component of the Neo-classical school.

5.3. Modern Organizational Theory

Within the scholarship of organizational theory, other scholars have used different terminologies either as a further propagation of the neo-classical school of thought or its modification using the concept of Modern Organization Theory. It is the view of the scholars within this school of thought that since “a system is any organized collection of parts united by prescribed interactions and designed for the accomplishment of a specific goal or general purpose”, thus, modern organization theory is considered to be one aspect of systems theory. Scott’s work “Organization Theory: An overview and appraisal” [3] falls within this new school of thought - “Modern organization theory”.

After explicating organization as a web of collectivized pattern, and as a vehicle for accomplishing goals and objectives, this scholar equally emphasized that “organization enhances the predictability of human action, because it limits the numbers of behavioral alternatives available to an individual”. Following this prelude, he claimed that classical organization theory was built around four key pillars of: (1) Division of labor; (2) Scalar and functional processes; (3) Structure and; (4) Span of control. He identified division of labor as the cornerstone of organization among these pillars.

This scholar unveiled some of the now common shortcomings of the classical school notably amongst them is the downplaying or neglecting of the dynamism inherent in the organization as things like informal groups, individual personality, intra-organizational conflict, and the overlooking of the contributions of the behavioral sciences. He equally reviewed the tenets of neo-classical theory of organizations by emphasizing that it embarked on the task of compensating for some of the deficiencies of the classical doctrine notably the reification of organization and the total neglect of humanism. He argued that the neo-classical school of thought points out that human problem (within organizations) are caused by imperfections in the way the organizational processes were handled by the classicalists. Thus, re-emphasizing the neo-classicalists’ condemnation of some of the imperatives of the classicalists. Following this, Scott drifted into the condemnation of the neo-classical school of thought notably human relations school. After highlighting some of the earlier criticisms of the neo-classical theory like “its agreeing with and, being bankrupt or the ones that range from “human relations is a tool for cynical puppeteering of people” to “human relations is nothing more than a trifling body of empirical and descriptive information”; he followed with his own criticism.

Even though, Scott [3] credited the neo-classical doctrine by claiming or arguing that the its approach has provided valuable contributions to the core of organization, he asserted and eloquently argued that, like the classical doctrine, the neo-classical doctrine suffers from incompleteness, thus, it is a shortsighted perspective that lacks integration among the many facts of human behavior it studied. And the attempt to rectify and remove these shortcomings in Scott’s perspective necessitated the emergence modern organization theory. According to him, the distinctive qualities of modern organizations theory are: (1) its conceptual analytical base; (2) its reliance on empirical research and; (3) its integrating nature.

From this perspective, modern organization theory asks a range of interrelated questions which were not seriously considered by both the classicalists and neo-classicalists. Some of these questions include: (1) what are the strategic parts of the system? (2) What is the nature of their mutual dependency? (3) What are the main processes in the system which link the parts together and facilitate their adjustment to each others? (4) What are the goals sought by the system?

While highlighting the fact that system theory seems to be the core of the foundation of modern organization theory and, while emphasizing its importance, this scholar minced no words in highlighting the fact that modern organization theory is in no way unified in terms of the ideological expositions of the scholars within it. And, that the only unifying thing within this school of thought is the effort to look at organization in its totality. He equally synonymized modern organization theory with general system theory though he claimed that the former is on the periphery of the latter. But, he argued that they (modern organization and General system theories) are similar in that they look at organization as an integrated whole and they only differ in terms of their generality.

5.3.1. Charles Perrow: (The Short and Glorious History of Organizational Theory)

Contributing to the threads of organizational theory this scholar highlighted the fact that dissension has long permeated the field of organization theory. He maintained the same view point with James March and Herbert Simon’s claim that classical theories are mechanistic. In addition to this, Perrow [13], [14] typified the classical organizational theory school of thought as the “forces of darkness” because it has been too mechanical in its treatment of organization as a machine. – He identified the concepts – centralized authority, clear line of authority, specialization and expertise, marked division of labor, rules and regulations, and clear separation of staff and line – with which the classicalists defined organization as similar to the mechanical parts of a machine. He classified the neo-classical theories (e.g. human relations) as “forces of light” because they emphasized people rather than machines, accommodation rather than machine like precision. The classicalists drew their inspirations from biological system rather than engineering system. The neo-classicalists emphasized such things as: delegation of authority, employee autonomy, trust and openness, concerns with the “whole persons”, and interpersonal dynamics.

6. Conclusions

The theory of organization has been examined in this paper tracing its pedigree to the classical beginning. In the process, the stages of scholarship and theoretical exploits on the phenomenon of organization were identified while fully taking cognizance of the paradigm changes and their attendant models which have variously determined and characterized the nerves and arteries of organizations all over the world at different points in time. It was revealed in this paper that the concept of organization has long remained relevant in our society regardless of its geo-political location. And, that the quest for its workability for the sustenance of human happiness and productivity for the betterment of humankind has attracted it to the intellectual or analytical curiosity of scholars over the years particularly in the context of theoretical explication of what has long characterized and, would continue to characterize the nerves of our organizations in human society.

The wherewithal of these scholars’ efforts and documentation of these trends and developments was clearly appraised in terms of what represents the reigning paradigm vis-à-vis the contemporary state of our organizations in today’s global village. While documenting this, it was been emphasized that the subject matter of organization and its theory will continue to be relevant and dominant in terms of analysis and pursuit of knowledge vis-à-vis the nerves and arteries of human organization all over the world. This notwithstanding however, given the current developmental trends and seemingly unstoppable supersonic transformation in information technology and its attendant variables of electronic administrative values and systemic existence of today’s world explainable in E-governance; E-administration; E-organization; E-education and so on, the subsequent destination in terms of organizational theory and people within the organization, makes the issue of where do we go from here a multifocal poser for the futuristic considerations on the subject-matter of our focus in this paper.