A Study of Shelters for Street Children from an Organizational ...

5.1 Introduction
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSIONS ON FINDINGS
Hasenfeld (1992) describes different characteristics of human service organizations
that deal with and process people. Human beings are their raw materials and this
makes them unique in character and in their organizational structures. Consequently
he argues that no single organizational theory could account for all the features of their
work, and duly combine numerous different theories. Cognizant of the fact that shelters
for children living and/or working on the streets are complex institutions and as human
service organizations deal with very complicated situations of children, this chapter
draws upon different theories to describe the issues derived from the study. The
chapter focuses on three parts, which relate to different theoretical backgrounds arising
from the inquiry: Firstly, organizational theories endeavouring to show the complexity of
shelters as institutions of intervention, reintegration and service providers to children as
shelter's residents. Secondly, the dilemma shelters face as they intervene to address
the plight of children living and/or working on the streets. Thirdly, the views and
experiences of shelters managers and staff, the service providers and children the
shelters' residents the service recipients.
Manager's beliefs, attitudes, vision and practice influences how organizations function
and behind every managerial decision or action are assumptions about human nature
and human behaviour. Hasenfeld (1983:149) argues "the distribution of authority and
the control of workflow are guided by a norm of rationality". Push (1971:9) argues that
organizational theory refers to the study of structure, functioning and performance of an
organization together with behaviour of groups and individuals within organization.
Theorists (Aldrich, 1979; Hannan and Freeman, 1977; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Pfeffer
and Salancik, 1978; Williamson, 1975) suggest and point the fact that there is no one
best way to structure an organization, and there are several theoretical paradigms
upon which organizations could be structured. However, there seems to be general
agreement that what is important in an organization is a healthy balance between its
structure and output. This notion implies that where an organization's structure is weak
the output will reflect. Organizations invariably are concerned not only with their
structures but have to adapt to their environment. This perspective is known as
"contingency theory" (Blau, 1970; Chandler, 1962; Woodward, 1965; Perrow, 1967). In
86