Webers Distinction on Formal and Substantive Rationality Order Instructions: Assessed Essay
Students taking the course must write a 2000 word essay, which counts for 50% of the assessment of this course, on the following topic:
Explain what Weber meant by the distinction between formal rationality and substantive rationality. Using these two concepts, analyze whether Scientific Management and Human Relations Theory are formally rational, substantively rational, both, or neither.
All essays should contain a full list of works referred to (not included in the word count), and must be entirely your own unaided work. Plagiarism – using the words of anyone other than yourself unquoted and without attribution – is checked for using specialist software and will result in a reduced mark (which may be zero) or, in some circumstances, more severe penalties. In addition to the guidance you will already have received on plagiarism, there is information available on Moodle
A good essay has the following characteristics:
? It demonstrably makes use of readings (not just the textbook) and course material and references them: an essay is not just your opinion but should be based on the existing studies of the topic
? It is not simply a re-hash of lecture notes
? It makes an argument, rather than just being a list of points, and that argument can include, but should not be limited to, your own opinion
? It is structured rather than being a string of haphazard ideas
? It makes best use of the words available: as you write and re-read what you have written, ask yourself whether every word is relevant to the question
Essays must be submitted on-line via Moodle by Thursday 18th February 2016 at 12 noon.
FAQs about the essay
Q: How many works should I reference?
A: How long is a piece of string? The issue is the quality of your engagement with what you read – showing that you understand a small number of works well is better than a large number of works which you only understand superficially. There’s no point at all in referencing long lists of works that you haven’t read. You are being tested on your reading and the use you make of it, not on your ability to compile a bibliography. You should also be aiming to show a grasp of the more sophisticated reading (i.e. not just textbooks).
Q: Do I have to use a particular style of referencing?
21
A: Yes, in line with other courses in the School of Management please use the Harvard referencing system. Details are in your undergraduate student handbook.
Q: Do I have to be exactly on the word limit?
A: No, you can be +/- 10%. Essays which are shorter than this will obviously be at a disadvantage. Essays longer than this will not gain extra credit as this would be unfair.
Q: Do appendices and footnotes count against the word limit?
A: Yes, because otherwise it would give unfair advantage to those students using these devices.
Q: Different lecturers seem to have different attitudes to using Wikipedia and similar sources. What is your policy?
A: Please avoid using Wikipedia. Although it is useful for some purposes, it cannot be guaranteed as a reliable source in the way that academic articles and books, which have been peer-reviewed, are. So far as other web-based materials are concerned, it obviously depends what they are. But certainly publicity materials of companies need to be treated very carefully. For example, taking comments about leadership from the website of a firm offering leadership training and treating them as well-established and researched fact is not sensible. Similarly, using very low-level academic sources which abound on the web is not a good policy. You should be working at higher level than this, reading the kinds of things indicated on this reading list – there aren’t really any short cuts to doing that reading.
Q: Can I refer to my own experience?
A: Yes, and it can be very helpful to do so. But use such material sparingly, to illustrate points you are making. The main focus should be the academic literature.
Q: Can I meet you to discuss my plan for my essay?
A: I am afraid not, because there are too many students to make it practical to see everybody and it would be unfair of me to see only some of you. I appreciate that this is frustrating but I am sure you would prefer that I apply a consistent and fair policy to everyone. Workshop tutors may, at their discretion, be able to help but are not obliged to do so. The issue here is not just about time, anyway: part of what you are learning to do is to work independently as is required both at university and also, of course, in the wider world.
Q: I have not written an essay for a very long time. Am I at a disadvantage?
A: In one way the answer must be ‘yes’, in the same way that a student taking a quantitative subject who is more used to studying essay-based subjects is at a
22
disadvantage. On the other hand, there are many students in the same situation and in my experience, there is little relationship between the mark and the background of the student. There is perhaps too much mystique about essay writing ‘technique’: the bottom line is that if you are intelligent and have worked hard then that will almost always come through in what you write, even if you are not used to essays. Conversely, if you are unintelligent and/or haven’t worked hard then no amount of familiarity with writing essays is likely to be of much use.
Bear in mind also that in many jobs employers expect you to be fluent on paper (e.g. writing reports) and are looking for very similar skills to those being assessed here, especially the ability to condense large amounts of complex material and to provide clear and compelling arguments. If you can’t show that skill they won’t be very tolerant of the excuse that you aren’t used to doing it!
Q: Should I tailor my essay to be appealing to the lecturer?
A: No. For one thing, the marker and second marker of your essay may not be the lecturer, and the ultimate marker is the External Examiner who of course does not teach the course or work at this university. But in any case, markers are never looking for essays they ‘agree’ with – they are looking for the qualities described above – and in particular for independent thinking. Trying to second guess the supposed preferences of
Can you please write my essay so I can achieve an A* for this piece of work and please keep the essay on the 2000 word count not longer or less that is very important for me otherwise I will loose marks if you need any help call me or message me on my uk mobile number 0044719280452
Webers Distinction on Formal and Substantive Rationality Sample Answer
Weber’s distinction between formal rationality and substantive rationality
Rationalization of society is an idea that was conceptualized by Weber (Carroll, 2011). This paper provides an exhaustive explanation of what Max Weber meant by differentiating between substantive rationality and formal rationality. Moreover, with the use of the concepts of substantive rationality and formal rationality, this paper analyzes whether the Human Relations Theory and Scientific Management are substantively rational, formally rational, neither or both.
Rationalization is basically a product of technological advancements and scientific study in the West. Lippman and Aldrich (2013) reported that rationalization, by decreasing the tradition’s hold on society, brought about new practices. Rather than the behaviour of human beings being motivated by traditions and customs, rationalization resulted in behaviours which were guided by practicality and reason. Rationalization changed modern society to a great extent and it also played a vital role in the development of capitalism. There many types of rationality. This paper is focused only on formal rationality and substantive rationality.
Formal rationality and substantive rationality
Substantive rationality – people may consider various possible actions or values, and trying to make them consistent. Max Weber, in the early 20th century, referred to this as substantive rationality. Weber regarded it as problematical in the contemporary society largely because rationalization of social life made it very hard for individuals to follow some specific values (Sterling & Moore, 2012). For instance, following religious or family values might be very hard in contemporary society thanks to economic pressures and dominance of bureaucratic institutions and companies. In essence, substantive rationality entails deciding the most appropriate choice of a means to a given end as directed by each of the shared values. Simply put, a person is aiming to make her system of values and her actions harmonizing with each other (Kemple, 2013). Derksen (2014) noted that substantive rationality is understood as goal-oriented sensible action in the framework of definitive ends or values. It is the extent to which economic actions serve ultimate values in spite of what they might be. This concept is holistic thinking that focuses on problem solving in a system of values.
Formal rationality on the other hand entails making decisions which are founded on regulations, rules, as well as the bigger social structure of the society. In essence, formal rationality entails computing or working out the most efficient means to a given end (Hedoin, 2012). It is also the degree of quantitative calculation or accounting that is theoretically feasible and actually applied. As Weber pointed out, formal rationality refers to straightforward means-ends rational calculation. For instance, a person has a goal to accomplish and he/she then takes rational steps – that is, steps which are founded on science, logic, observation or prior experience – to accomplish that particular goal (Townley, 2012).
Formal rationality, as Hedoin (2012) stated, is a more extensive form of rationality which typifies business organizations; bureaucratic organizations in particular. This gives rise to universally applied regulations and laws which in fact epitomize formal rationality in Western countries, chiefly within the scientific, judicial and economic institutions, over and above in the bureaucratic type of authority. Some of the examples of formal rationality include rational-legal kinds of authority like the modern judicial and court systems (Townley, 2012). The fear of Max Weber was that formal rationality was becoming increasingly overriding in the western contemporary society and that the significance of substantive rationality was actually reducing.
Webers Distinction on Formal and Substantive Rationality and Scientific Management
Frederick Taylor was a contemporary of Max Weber and he conceptualized the idea of scientific management which seeks to increase results and performance by making employees more efficient and work more rational. According to Frederick Taylor, scientific management gave emphasis to the following: (i) discovering effective and efficient means of working by using scientific techniques; (ii) selecting the finest, most skilled personnel to perform work tasks and recruiting them; (iii) providing professional development and training to improve the efficiency of these employees in the business organization; and (iv) closely monitoring employees’ achievement of well-defined goals and standards (Sterling & Moore, 2012). In today’s age, most organizations and companies have espoused and implemented the fundamental principles of scientific management and rationality (Kemple, 2013).
The scientific management model proposed several principles applicable in management. Some of these principles comprised the study as well as application of scientific techniques to the tasks contained in different roles in order to improve workers’ efficiency (Derksen, 2014). Moreover, it suggested a reform of the processes of recruitment which ensured that new employees were selected in a scientific way to ensure that the workers who were hired were actually suitable for the job. Scientific management made a lasting and vital contribution in terms of the development of contemporary management.
The application of scientific management principles is formally rational and for this reason, scientific management can be considered as formally rational. The approach underlying such thinking is that people’s behaviour within organizations is rational, and that premeditated rational action has to be taken in order to ensure that control is effected over their actions for the purpose of the organization itself (Lippman & Aldrich, 2013). It is in this sense that management control is in fact very consciously rational and purposive. Weber suggested that the movement toward formal rationality would result in the development of interactions and practices aimed at facilitating calculation or efficiency instead of promoting aesthetics, morality or tradition (Kemple, 2013).
Scientific management by Taylor affirmed to have introduced a more formal rationality into the process of management. This assertion has a number of vital implications. It enabled the management of a business organization to be taught. If prescriptions of the management could be identified through experiment and study, then it is possible for individuals to attain management status (Giannantonio & Hurley-Hanson, 2011). It is not essential to be born into managerial authority positions as it had been supposed by the old social class structures. Through training and experience, even individuals from disadvantaged ethnic groups or social classes could become managers. Another supposition was that scientific management would be helpful in getting rid of social conflicts. If facts that are scientifically based could become the starting point and foundation of managerial decision-making, then the arbitrary exercise of managerial power would need to be eradicated and there would not be any rational disagreements with regard to managerial policies (Derksen, 2014). On the whole, scientific management offered the likelihood that conflicts of opinion could really be resolved through rational investigation.
According to Ritzer (2011), one familiar modern organization today that has effectively espoused and implemented the main principles of scientific management and formal rationality is McDonald’s – a company whose practices and structures typify and illustrate the ideas of Frederick Taylor and Max Weber in action. Ritzer (2011) pointed out that McDonald’s – as well as the McDonaldization of other firms in today’s era – is really not a novel or new phenomenon; rather, it is the product of the processes of rationalization which have been taking place during the past century and influenced commercial, governmental and even educational organizations. In essence, McDonalized corporations have 4 main purposes or characteristics: (a) control over individuals entering the organizations by means of non-human technology; (b) efficiency, or the best technique of getting from one point to another point; (c) calculability, or a highlighting on the quantitative facets of services and/or products offered; and (d) predictability, the assurance that over time in every location, services and products would actually be the same (Lippmann & Altman, 2013).
According to Max Weber, scientific management is formally rational. Max Weber did not see the success of formal rationality only in the bureaucracy. The other place where he noticed the success of formal rationality is the capitalist factory that was very much influenced by the formally rational military (Ritzer, 2011). Max Weber saw the organizational discipline within the modern capitalist factory as totally formally rational. He saw the epitome of this type of formal rationality within the United States scientific management system: Weber stated that with the assistance of appropriate techniques of measurement, the individual worker’s optimal profitability is computed similar to that of any material means of production. Basing on this, he noted that the scientific management system in the United States successfully proceeds with its rational conditioning as well as training of work performances, therefore making final conclusion from the discipline and mechanization of the factory or facility (Wren, 2011). In essence, man’s psycho-physical apparatus is totally adapted to the demands of the machines and tools (Hedoin, 2012).
Webers Distinction on Formal and Substantive Rationality and Human Relations Theory
Also referred to as behavioural management theory, the Human Relations Theory is focused more on the people in a place of work than the processes, procedures and rules. Rather than directives coming directly from the senior company executives, this theory emphasize communication between managers and staff members and allow them to interact with each other to help in making decisions (Townley, 2012). Rather than providing employees with quotas and demanding specific procedures, staff members are exposed to emotional as well as motivational tactics in order to get them to enhance and improve their productivity. This style basically focuses on creating productive, satisfied employees and helping employees to invest in the organization.
The Human Relations Theory is neither substantively rational nor formally rational. As a kind of decision-making, formal rationality is subject to computation which goes into an action to improve its likelihood of becoming successful. In formal rationality, the most efficient means to an end is calculated or quantified (Lippman & Aldrich, 2013). In essence, formal rationality forces order on the society by means of measurable, inflexible terms through decisions founded on common laws and rules. The Human Relations Theory is not formally rational at all. As per the Human Relations Theory, the attitudes of people in an organization have the potential of affecting their productivity either in a negative or positive way. The place of work can be likened to a social system that comprises informal groups that bear significant influence over the workers’ behaviour and attitude. Additionally, this theoretical framework emphasized on the style of supervision and management. It stated that the adopted styles of supervision and management have a direct impact on the workers’ job satisfaction level (Derksen, 2014).
Furthermore, the Human Relations Theory is really not substantively rational. Even as many business organizations operate basing upon the Human Relations Theory, Wren (2011) pointed out that this kind of management has its shortcomings. Business organizations risk their employees becoming very social or easily influenced by personal opinions and emotions when making important decisions instead of depending on hard data. In addition, dismissing workers after they become invested in the organization or reprimanding them for poor performance might be harder and more difficult. In spite of these risks, this theory can increase employee productivity and retention rates in the organization. As workers feel more valued by their organization, they would invest in it and its greater good (Wren, 2011).
Webers Distinction on Formal and Substantive Rationality Conclusion
To sum up, Max Weber stated that substantive rationality is basically a goal-oriented sensible act in the context of definitive values or ends. It entails deciding the most appropriate choice of a means to a given end as directed by shared values. On the contrary, formal rationality entails making decisions founded on regulations, rules, in addition to the bigger social structure of the society. It entails quantifying or calculating the most efficient means to a given end. Since the application of scientific management principles is formally rational, then scientific management is in fact formally rational. Nonetheless, the Human Relations Theory is neither substantively nor formally rational. A recognizable modern organization in the present day that has effectively espoused and implemented the main principles of scientific management and formal rationality is McDonald’s – a firm whose practices and structures epitomize and illustrate the ideas of Frederick Taylor and Max Weber in action.
Webers Distinction on Formal and Substantive Rationality References
Carroll, A. J. (2011). Disenchantment, rationality and the modernity of Max Weber. Forum Philosophicum: International Journal For Philosophy, 16(1), 117-137.
Derksen, M. (2014). Turning Men into Machines? Scientific Management, Industrial Psychology, and the ‘Human Factor’. Journal Of The History Of The Behavioral Sciences, 50(2), 148-165. doi:10.1002/jhbs.21650
Giannantonio, C. M., & Hurley-Hanson, A. E. (2011). Frederick Winslow Taylor: Reflections on the Relevance of The Principles of Scientific Management 100 Years Later. Journal Of Business & Management, 17(1), 7-10.
Hedoin, C. (2012). Weber and Veblen on the Rationalization Process. Journal Of Economic Issues (M.E. Sharpe Inc.), 43(1), 167-187.
Kemple, T. (2013). Presenting Max Weber. Canadian Journal Of Sociology, 38(3), 407-412.
Lippman, S, & Aldrich, H. (2013). The rationalization of everything? Using Ritzer’s McDonaldization thesis to teach Weber. Teaching Sociology, 31, 134-145.
Ritzer, G. (2011). Explorations in social theory: From metatheorizing to rationalization. Boston, MA: SAGE.
Sterling, J. S., & Moore, W. E. (2012). Weber’s Analysis of Legal Rationalization: A Critique and Constructive Modification. Sociological Forum, 2(1), 67.
Townley, B. (2012). The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy Of Management Journal, 45(1), 163-179. doi:10.2307/3069290
Wren, D. A. (2011). The Centennial of Frederick W. Taylor’s The Principles of Scientific Management: A Retrospective Commentary. Journal Of Business & Management, 17(1), 11-22.
