| Course | PSY-3600 Organizational Theory |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Written assignment: current thinking in organizational theory |
| Length | About 505 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSY 3600 Module 6
Self-Managing Crews or Algorithmic Dispatch? Current Organizational Theory Meets a Moving Company
Student Name
Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership, Thomas Edison State University
PSY-3600: Organizational Theory
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Self-Managing Crews or Algorithmic Dispatch? Current Organizational Theory Meets a Moving Company
The Choice in Front of Us
A software vendor offers to replace our dispatch office's scheduling with an app that assigns crews to jobs automatically, tracks each truck by GPS, measures crew speed against estimates and ranks crews. The owners are interested because dispatch is our largest office cost. At the same time, experienced crew chiefs have asked for more say over how they run jobs, an idea discussed in Module 2. Current organizational theory speaks to both directions.
Self-Managing Organizations
Lee and Edmondson (2017) examined self-managing organizations, which radically decentralize authority by eliminating the reporting relationship between manager and subordinate throughout the organization. They argue such forms can increase engagement, learning and responsiveness but face real limits, including role ambiguity, difficulty coordinating across the organization and the persistence of informal hierarchy. They distinguish full self-management from more common approaches that decentralize authority within particular teams.
For our company, full self-management is unrealistic; legal duties for safety, licensing and customer claims require clear accountability. But team-level self-management fits experienced crews well. They already coordinate informally, as the natural system perspective in Module 1 described, and giving them formal authority over on-site decisions would match structure to how the work is done.
Algorithmic Management
Kellogg et al. (2020) reviewed research on algorithms at work and argued that algorithmic control extends managerial control in new ways: directing work through recommendations and restrictions, evaluating it through recording and rating and disciplining through replacement and rewards. In their reading, software control reaches further, acts faster and hides more than a supervisor ever could, and workers find ways to push back.
Tolbert and Hall (2009) note that technology has long shaped organizational structure, and this technology pushes in a clear direction. The vendor's app would bring exactly this control to our crews: automatic assignment, continuous tracking and rankings. In the language of Module 2, it would make the company more mechanistic and centralized at the very point where the work calls for flexibility. Crews ranked on speed would have reason to rush, undermining the damage-free culture analyzed in Module 5.
| Direction | Promise | Risk for our company |
|---|---|---|
| Team self-management | Faster on-site decisions; engagement of experienced crews | Unclear accountability for claims without limits |
| Algorithmic dispatch | Lower scheduling cost; real-time tracking | Opaque control, rushed work, erosion of crew culture |
Recommendation
The company should adopt team self-management for on-site work by experienced crews, within limits on cost and safety, and use software to support dispatchers rather than replace them. The scheduling tool should suggest assignments that a dispatcher approves and explains, not issue them automatically, and it should not rank crews on speed alone. Weber's insight that rules can bring reliability still applies to scheduling; McGregor's insight about trusting capable people applies on the job.
Conclusion
Current thinking offers organizations more autonomy and more control at the same time. For a moving company whose value depends on careful work in unpredictable homes, the better path combines self-managing crews with human-led, transparent scheduling.
References
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
Lee, M. Y., & Edmondson, A. C. (2017). Self-managing organizations: Exploring the limits of less-hierarchical organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 35-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2017.10.002
Tolbert, P. S., & Hall, R. H. (2009). Organizations: Structures, processes, and outcomes (10th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
PSY 3600 Module 6 instructions, in plain terms
The closing PSY-3600 module turns to current thinking about how organizations are built, and this sample answers its written assignment. You will examine one or more current developments, such as self-managing structures, network and platform forms or algorithmic management, relate them to the classic theories studied earlier and assess what they mean for a real organization. Use recent scholarly sources alongside Tolbert and Hall and the classics. The final exam's essays cover Modules 4 through 6, so linking new ideas to earlier ones is good preparation. Use recent scholarly research rather than news stories about trends. Connect the new ideas to classic ones from earlier modules. Weigh both promise and risk.
How this PSY 3600 Module 6 example is built
The paper begins with a real choice: a vendor's app-based dispatch and crew chiefs' request for more authority. Lee and Edmondson's research on self-managing organizations shows both promise and limits and points to team-level self-management. Kellogg, Valentine and Christin's review of algorithmic control explains what the app would do to crews' work and culture. Both are tied back to earlier modules: natural systems, mechanistic structure and the damage-free culture. A two-row table compares the directions, and the recommendation combines self-managing crews with human-led, transparent scheduling, citing Weber and McGregor. The recommendation keeps humans responsible for decisions an algorithm would make opaque. A table weighs the promise and risk of each direction.
PSY 3600 Module 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Marks reward correct use of recent research, links back to the classics, one real firm and APA form. Papers that use recent scholarly sources to evaluate a real choice earn more than papers that describe trends. Connecting new forms to earlier concepts, such as centralization or culture, shows integration across the course. Recognizing both promise and limits of new forms shows critical thinking. A recommendation suited to the organization's work shows judgment. Mentors also credit a recommendation that blends approaches when the evidence supports it, rather than choosing one side. Showing both promise and limits of new forms of organizing shows balanced judgment.
Common PSY 3600 Module 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students lose marks by describing new organizational trends from news articles without scholarly sources, by treating new forms as simply better than old ones or by failing to connect them to earlier theories. Choose one or two current developments, find recent research on them, relate them to concepts from earlier modules and assess what they would mean for a specific organization. A free first draft of your PSY-3600 Module 6 written assignment can be shaped to your organization's choices. Link each new idea to a concept from an earlier module, since the final exam rewards connections across the course. Weigh what each new approach would mean for the people doing the work, not only for costs.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PSY 3600 and Bachelor of Science in Organizational Leadership sample papers
- PSY 3600 Module 1: Written Assignment: A Moving Company Seen as Rational, Natural and Open System
- PSY 3600 Module 2: Written Assignment: Theory X, Theory Y and the Shape of a Moving Company
- PSY 3600 Module 3: Written Assignment: Power, Leadership and a Decision About a New Warehouse
- PSY 3600 Module 4: Written Assignment: Estimates, Crews and a New App Through Systems and Communication Theory
- PSY 3600 Module 5: Written Assignment: Environment, Effectiveness and Culture at a Moving Company
- MAN 3760 Module 1: Self-Assessment: How a Ramp Supervisor Communicates Under Pressure
- LDR 4220 Module 2: Case Study: Netflix's Leap to 190 Countries and the Transnational Strategy
- LDR 3240 Module 4: Application Paper: Legitimate Authority and the Followers Who Grant It
- LDR 3050 Module 12: Final Paper: My Approach to Leadership and a Development Plan
PSY 3600 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PSY 3600 Module 6 sample paper?
The written assignment above weighs self-managing crews and algorithmic dispatch for a moving and storage company.
What is a self-managing organization?
One that eliminates manager-subordinate reporting relationships throughout, decentralizing authority radically, as Lee and Edmondson describe.
What is algorithmic management?
Software that assigns, scores and corrects workers' tasks, a new arena of control in Kellogg's review.
How does current organizational theory relate to the classics?
Newer forms extend classic questions about structure, control and autonomy rather than replacing them.
What does PSY-3600 Module 6 cover?
Current thinking in organizational theory, including newer forms of organizing and their implications.