The administrator role is primarily that of a controller. Integration of the technical and human subsystems is viewed as a tradeoff, with the needs of the technical subsystem being foremost. Human characteristics must be molded to fit technical requirements, and where they do not, administrators must take corrective action in order to bring people, not structure, into conformity. If the organization’s environment is relatively predictable, if goals and tasks are stable, and if individuals are trained to mesh with predetermined processes and programs, predicts that people will produce up to minimal standards but will not be motivated to perform beyond this level or take corrective actions themselves.

The role of the administrator is expanded to include responsibility for maintenance of the human subsystem. Although still primarily a controller, the administrator recognizes that people are not machines that their needs may be incompatible with the technical subsystem, and that special attention must be paid to keeping people satisfied with their jobs. If satisfaction is maintained, the Human Relations approach argues, and then the administration can expect employees to comply with the needs of the organization and to produce at acceptable levels.

Under the Human Resources model, the administrator’s role is substantially altered and much more challenging. No longer a controller but a facilitator and developer of the entire socio – technical system, the Human Resources administrator must truly integrate both organization and human variables. Unlike the traditionalist, who forces the human subsystem to comply with the technical subsystem, or the human relation, who persuades people to cooperate, the Human Resources administrator fully recognizes the possible incompatibility between human and technical needs and searches for ways to reduce it. This search is not limited to looking for means of increasing human compliance with the technical subsystem-technical variables themselves are targets for change. However, the Human Resources administrator does not have to be a perfect combination of engineer and psychologist. As noted earlier, the study of organizational behavior has, in recent years, been making advances on both the technical and human fronts. Thus, the Human Resources administrative role is simply the manifestation of current knowledge in the field, and it argues that while the administrator primary function is still problem finding and problem solving, both the problems and how they are approached are substantially different. That is, moving from one administrative model to another neither removes nor solves administrative problems. Instead, such a movement merely changes the nature of the problems with which the administrator must deal.

The management and organization theorists who were writing in the first half of this century tended to ignore the environment, or at least to hold it constant, as they sought universal principles of administration. For example, Weber, while aware of some of the dysfunctions of bureaucracy, implied that this form of organization was appropriate for all organizational settings. Similarly, Taylor viewed his principles of Scientific Management as universally applicable and treated environmental demands as fixed in his search for the one best way. It was not until the late 1950 and early 1960 that models were developed portraying the linkages of environment, technology, structure, and process to one another. Most of these models, however, dealt with only a limited aspect of the entire process of organizational adjustment to the environment and most were content simply to describe these relationships without explaining how they came about.

Author Bio: http://sites.google.com/site/cliptheschoolbeginning/ http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoriasite/

Category: Business Management
Keywords: Business,investing,company,organizing,organization,administrator,manager,leader,Motivation,Attitude