Editing Organizational theory (section)

==Background==
===Rise of organizations===
{{Globalize|article|USA|2name=the United States|date=March 2015}}

In [[1820s|1820]], about 20% of the United States population depended on a wage [[income]]. That percentage increased to 90% by 1950.<ref name="Perrow 1991 725–762">{{cite journal|last= Perrow|first= Charles|title=A Society of Organizations|journal= Theory and Society|volume= 20|issue= 6|year= 1991|pages= 725–762|doi= 10.1007/BF00678095|s2cid= 140787141}}</ref> Generally, by 1950, farmers and craftsmen were the only people not dependent on working for someone else. Prior to that time, most people were able to survive by hunting and farming their own food, making their own supplies, and remaining almost fully self-sufficient.<ref name="Perrow 1991 725–762" /> As transportation became more efficient and technologies developed, [[self-sufficiency]] became an economically poor choice.<ref name="Chandler 1977">{{cite book|last= Chandler|first= Alfred|title=The Visible Hand|url= https://archive.org/details/visiblehandmanag00chan|url-access= registration|year= 1977|publisher= Cambridge University Press|location= Cambridge|isbn= 9780674940529}}</ref> As in the [[Lowell textile mills]], various machines and processes were developed for each step of the production process, thus making mass production a cheaper and faster alternative to individual production. In addition, as the population grew and transportation improved, the pre-organizational system struggled to support the needs of the market.<ref name="Chandler 1977" /> These conditions made for a wage-dependent population that sought out jobs in growing organizations, leading to a shift away from individual and family production.

In addition to a shift to wage dependence, externalities from [[industrialization]] also created a perfect opportunity for the rise of organizations. Various negative effects such as pollution, [[workplace accident]]s, crowded cities, and [[unemployment]] became rising concerns. Rather than small groups such as families and churches being able to control these problems as they had in the past, new organizations and systems were required.<ref name="Perrow 1991 725–762" /> These organizations were less personal, more distant, and more centralized, but what they lacked in locality they made up for in efficiency.<ref name="Perrow 1991 725–762" />

Along with wage dependency and externalities, the growth of industry also played a large role in the development of organizations. Markets that were quickly growing needed workers urgently, so a need developed for organizational structures to guide and support those new workers.<ref>{{cite journal|last= Greiner|first= Larry|title= Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow|journal= Harvard Business Review|date= June 1998}}</ref> Some of the first New England factories initially relied on the daughters of farmers; later, as the economy changed, they began to gain workers from the former farming classes, and finally, from European immigrants. Many Europeans left their homes for the promises of US industry, and about 60% of those immigrants stayed in the country. They became a permanent class of workers in the economy, which allowed factories to increase production and produce more than they had before.<ref name="Perrow 1991 725–762" /> With this large growth came the need for organizations and for [[leadership]] that was not previously needed in small businesses and firms.

Overall, the historical and social context in which organizations arose in the United States allowed not only for the development of organizations, but also for their spread and growth. Wage dependency, externalities, and growth of industries all played into the change from individual, family, and small-group production and regulation to large organizations and structure.

=== Developments in theory ===
As people implemented organizations over time, many researchers have experimented as to which organizational theory fits them best. The theories of organizations include bureaucracy, rationalization (scientific management), and the division of labor. Each theory provides distinct advantages and disadvantages when applied.<ref name="classics">{{cite book|last1=Shafritz|first1=Jay|url=https://archive.org/details/classicsoforgani00jaym_0|title=Classics of Organization Theory|last2=Ott|first2=J. Steven|publisher=Harcourt|year=2001|isbn=0-15-506869-5|editor1-last=Shafritz|editor1-first=Jay|edition=5|location=Orlando|chapter=Classical Organization Theory|editor2-last=Ott|editor2-first=J. Steven|url-access=registration}}</ref>

The classical perspective emerges from the [[Industrial Revolution]] in the private sector and the need for improved [[public administration]] in the public sector. Both efforts center on theories of efficiency. Classical works have seasoned and have been elaborated upon in depth.<ref name="classics" /> There are at least two subtopics under the classical perspective: the scientific management and bureaucracy theory.'''<ref name="Daft">Daft, R. L., and A. Armstrong. 2009. ''Organization Theory and Design''. Toronto: Nelson.</ref>'''

A number of sociologists and psychologists made major contributions to the study of the neoclassical perspective, which is also known as the human relations school of thought. The [[human relations movement]] was a movement which had the primary concerns of concentrating on topics such as morale, leadership. This perspective began in the [[1920s]] with the [[Hawthorne studies]], which gave emphasis to "affective and socio-psychological aspects of human behavior in organizations."<ref name=":0" /> The study, taking place at the "Hawthorne plant of the [[Western Electric Company]] between 1927 and 1932," would make [[Elton Mayo]] and his colleagues the most important contributors to the neoclassical perspective.<ref name="Wiest">The Wisest. 15 July 2011. "Neo-Classical School of Management Thought." ''Idea Today's''. Retrieved from {{cite web|title=Neo – Classical School of Management Thought &#124; Idea Today's|url=http://www.ideatodays.com/business/business-management/neo-classical-school-of-management-thought.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120427111736/http://www.ideatodays.com/business/business-management/neo-classical-school-of-management-thought.html|archive-date=2012-04-27|access-date=2012-03-29}}</ref>

There was a wave of scholarly attention to organizational theory in the 1950s, which from some viewpoints held the field to still be in its infancy. A 1959 symposium held by the Foundation for Research on Human Behavior in [[Ann Arbor, Michigan]], was published as ''Modern Organization Theory''. Among a group of eminent organizational theorists active during this decade were [[E. Wight Bakke]], [[Chris Argyris]], [[James G. March]], [[Rensis Likert]], [[Jacob Marschak]], [[Anatol Rapoport]], and [[William Foote Whyte]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Posey|first=Rollin B.|date=March 1961|title=''Modern Organization Theory'' edited by Mason Haire|journal=Administrative Science Quarterly|volume=5|pages=609–611|doi=10.2307/2390625|jstor=2390625|number=4}}</ref>