The
history of organizations
describes the general history of the rise of the organization. Since earliest
times humanity has endeavoured to develop the most appropriate systems of
organization to meet the challenges of a particular era. Inevitably the systems
of organization that developed were reflections of the wider values, tradition
and general organization of society at that time, moulded by the necessity of
withstanding threat and seeking to innovate whilst maximising benefits from
existing resources.
history of organizations
describes the general history of the rise of the organization. Since earliest
times humanity has endeavoured to develop the most appropriate systems of
organization to meet the challenges of a particular era. Inevitably the systems
of organization that developed were reflections of the wider values, tradition
and general organization of society at that time, moulded by the necessity of
withstanding threat and seeking to innovate whilst maximising benefits from
existing resources.
Human
development has continually necessitated a corollary of human and
organizational development designed to maximize effectiveness. This progression
is indicative of a civilizing process that has continually asked humanity to
reassess its relationship with itself and to increasingly value the welfare of
both the individual and wider society as a whole. The symbiotic relationship
between strategic leadership and organizational structure necessary to success
can be traced back to the beginnings of western civilization. Indeed, the very
term strategic owes its etymology to the ancient Greek words for ‘army’
or a ‘large body’ and a ‘leader’. In ancient Greece the ‘Strategikos‘
was the leader of the army.
development has continually necessitated a corollary of human and
organizational development designed to maximize effectiveness. This progression
is indicative of a civilizing process that has continually asked humanity to
reassess its relationship with itself and to increasingly value the welfare of
both the individual and wider society as a whole. The symbiotic relationship
between strategic leadership and organizational structure necessary to success
can be traced back to the beginnings of western civilization. Indeed, the very
term strategic owes its etymology to the ancient Greek words for ‘army’
or a ‘large body’ and a ‘leader’. In ancient Greece the ‘Strategikos‘
was the leader of the army.
In
1776 the political economist Adam Smith wrote on how specialization can boost human
productivity enormously. By specializing, people can use their talents, or
acquire skill. And they can employ labour-saving machinery to boost production.
Smith’s view was borne out by the effects of mass industrialization in the late
18th century which caused great change in how people worked and how work was
organized.
1776 the political economist Adam Smith wrote on how specialization can boost human
productivity enormously. By specializing, people can use their talents, or
acquire skill. And they can employ labour-saving machinery to boost production.
Smith’s view was borne out by the effects of mass industrialization in the late
18th century which caused great change in how people worked and how work was
organized.
On
this topic Lynda Gratton, the organizational
theorist, describes the “fundamental and irreversible
shift which changed the experiences of every worker.” She states that
prior to the Industrial Revolution, work was an “artisan activity engaged
largely in the home, using long held and meticulously developed craft
skills.” According to Gratton these skills “began to be transformed
as the manufacturing sector was developed and began to transcend the limits of
artisanal production”.
this topic Lynda Gratton, the organizational
theorist, describes the “fundamental and irreversible
shift which changed the experiences of every worker.” She states that
prior to the Industrial Revolution, work was an “artisan activity engaged
largely in the home, using long held and meticulously developed craft
skills.” According to Gratton these skills “began to be transformed
as the manufacturing sector was developed and began to transcend the limits of
artisanal production”.
The
late 18th and early 19th century was a period where the artisan and the
agricultural worker gave way to the burgeoning factory units that were
beginning to emerge. The enclosure of vast tracts of commonage in the
countryside facilitated a move from pastoral farming to grazing – forcing many
from the land, often in dire circumstances. This growing trend of migration
from the rural to the urban witnessed the growth of the metropolis, and the
industrialized city. The growth of a mass society meant that the relationship
with work was altered, it now became much more time centred and precise – a
standardized approach was in the process of being developed.
late 18th and early 19th century was a period where the artisan and the
agricultural worker gave way to the burgeoning factory units that were
beginning to emerge. The enclosure of vast tracts of commonage in the
countryside facilitated a move from pastoral farming to grazing – forcing many
from the land, often in dire circumstances. This growing trend of migration
from the rural to the urban witnessed the growth of the metropolis, and the
industrialized city. The growth of a mass society meant that the relationship
with work was altered, it now became much more time centred and precise – a
standardized approach was in the process of being developed.
Alongside
the migration of workers to the new factories (largely situated around energy
sources and communication networks – coal
deposits and canals etc. this period witnessed the emergence of global
corporations situated in key centres such as London and Paris, as trade
followed the flag in a wave of colonization. The shift from coal
to oil as the primary energy source for industry coupled with the
decolonization of empires in the 20th century would witness shifting paradigms
in the power relationships between major states. The issue of empire is
important in the sense that economic advantages accrued through imperialism
were a cornerstone in the advent of modernity, and the enforced homogeneity
achieved through Empire coupled with the technological improvements in
transport and technology that it funded made the world a lot smaller and lot
more similar.
the migration of workers to the new factories (largely situated around energy
sources and communication networks – coal
deposits and canals etc. this period witnessed the emergence of global
corporations situated in key centres such as London and Paris, as trade
followed the flag in a wave of colonization. The shift from coal
to oil as the primary energy source for industry coupled with the
decolonization of empires in the 20th century would witness shifting paradigms
in the power relationships between major states. The issue of empire is
important in the sense that economic advantages accrued through imperialism
were a cornerstone in the advent of modernity, and the enforced homogeneity
achieved through Empire coupled with the technological improvements in
transport and technology that it funded made the world a lot smaller and lot
more similar.
Whilst
recognising the significant impacts that the Industrial Revolution had, Gratton
states that the “real revolution” in people’s working lives began in
the mid-to-late-19th century when British scientists drove a culture of
innovation with the ideas of organisational and technological restructuring
based on changes in the energy that powered industry. Joel Mokyr puts a timeframe
of 1870-1914 on this “Second Industrial Revolution”, the concept
introduced by Patrick Geddes in his work Cities in Evolution. According to
Gratton: “Work became more regimented, more specialised. The workplace and
the work schedule became more compartmentalised and hierarchical.” Gratton
states that this was ‘the embryonic stages of Fordism – the rise of the
engineer as the organiser of economic activity, and the decline of the artisan.
recognising the significant impacts that the Industrial Revolution had, Gratton
states that the “real revolution” in people’s working lives began in
the mid-to-late-19th century when British scientists drove a culture of
innovation with the ideas of organisational and technological restructuring
based on changes in the energy that powered industry. Joel Mokyr puts a timeframe
of 1870-1914 on this “Second Industrial Revolution”, the concept
introduced by Patrick Geddes in his work Cities in Evolution. According to
Gratton: “Work became more regimented, more specialised. The workplace and
the work schedule became more compartmentalised and hierarchical.” Gratton
states that this was ‘the embryonic stages of Fordism – the rise of the
engineer as the organiser of economic activity, and the decline of the artisan.
