<< back to Student's zone home
<< back to Students' resource center
Chapter summaries
Click on the links below to view a summary of each chapter.
Part 1: Work and organizational behaviour
Part 2: Managing organizations
Part 3: Individuals and work
Part 4: Groups and social interaction
Part 5: Organizational change and performance
Chapter 1: The nature of organizational behaviour
In this introductory chapter we have attempted to cover a wide range of complex issues. We emphasized that external contexts have a significant impact on the way individuals and groups work and behave. The external context influences the structure and behaviour of work organization, and in turn, organizations influence the wider society. The linkage between the external contexts and the search for competitive advantage through employee behaviour is complex. Globalization means that there is a need for a multidimensional approach to the study of behaviour in organizations.
OB is a complex field of study with no agreed boundaries, and draws from a variety of disciplines including industrial psychology, sociology, anthropology and political science. We defined it as a multidisciplinary field of inquiry, concerned with the systematic study of formal organizations, the behaviour of people within organizations, and important features of their social context that structure all the activities that occur inside the organization. To draw on the work of American sociologist C. Wright Mills, an ‘organizational behaviour imagination’ allows us to grasp the interplay of people in organizations and the larger economic, political and social context that structures the behaviour.
Studying OB can help put people in a stronger position to influence and shape the workplace and their own future. OB is very much an applied social science, which provides a conceptual ‘toolbox’ to help people predict, explain and influence organizational actions.
We also focused on diversity because we consider the social dynamics of class, gender, race and ethnicity to underpin contemporary organizational behaviour. Understanding the significance of class, gender, race and ethnicity, and disability puts the behaviour of individuals and groups in the organization into a wider social context.
We identified four major theoretical frameworks or paradigms used by OB theorists for the study of human behaviour in work organizations: the structural-functionalist perspective, the symbolic-interactionist perspective, the conflict perspective and the feminist perspective. The structural-functionalist or managerialist perspective represents ‘mainstream’ organizational behaviour analysis. It assumes that work behaviour takes place in rationally designed organizations, and is inseparable from the notion of efficiency. The symbolic-interactionist perspective focuses on the micro analysis of small work groups, and interpersonal interaction in the organization. The critical perspective on organizational behaviour set out to discover the ways in which power, control, conflict and legitimacy affect relations between managers, and between managers and non-managers. The feminist perspective emerged out of criticisms of traditional organizational behaviour, which feminist scholars argue has been mainly concerned with research on men by men. It is rooted in critical analysis of society, but it has also been applied effectively to research on work groups, interpersonal interaction and organizational communications analysis.
Finally, we discussed two ontological orientations – objectivism and constructionism – and two epistemological orientations – positivism and interpretivism – and outlined how these influence decisions on research methodology. Depending on the researcher’s perspective, which reflects a whole series of assumptions about the nature of the social world, OB researchers will tend to lean towards either quantitative or qualitative research strategies.
Chapter 2: Work in organizations
One of the major themes running through the approach has been the continuities as well as the discontinuities across time. There is no doubt that changes occur all the time, but these must be contextualized adequately if we are to appreciate their relevance. Thus, we can only really talk about a rise in instrumental orientations to work if we know what existed previously.
Trying to summarize the experience of work over several millennia is a difficult task. There is so much material to cover that no text of conventional size would be able to deal adequately with the complexities. However, this chapter has been written on the assumption that some knowledge is preferable to complete ignorance, especially if to understand the present we have to situate it against the past. It has tended to highlight gender issues in the workplace to balance out the conventional preference for male history.
The complexity of the experience of work defies any simple assumptions about the significance of work. However, perhaps we can salvage from the past a conclusion that illuminates the significance of the social. Work, like other institutions, is inherently and irreducibly constructed, interpreted and organized through social actions and social discourse .
Chapter 3: Studying work and organizations
The three founders of the sociology of work all continue to have their contemporary adherents and detractors.
Marx’s fascination with class, conflict and the labour process formed the basis for the most popular new approach throughout much of industrial sociology, from the late 1960s to the 1980s. It spawned a complete school of thought in the labour process tradition; but its limitations became more evident as the approach attempted to explain all manner of social phenomena directly through the prism of class.
Durkheim’s moral concerns continue to pervade the market economy, and make predictions about human actions that are based on amoral, economically rational behaviour less than convincing. Perhaps where Durkheim has been most vigorously criticized has been in relation to the allegedly cohering effects of an extended division of labour. The mainstream of managerial theories does not support Durkheim on this point: dependency does not generate mutual solidarity.
Weber’s theories of rationalization and bureaucracy have never been far from the minds of those analysing the trend towards larger and larger organizations, and the recent movement towards more flexible work organization patterns. Again, however, Weber’s over-rationalized approach underestimated the significance of destabilizing and sectional forces within work organizations.
This chapter has reviewed 12 theoretical approaches or conversations on organizational studies: the technical, human relations, neo-human relations, systems thinking, contingency, cultures, learning, control, feminist, social action, political and postmodernist approaches. It adopted a particular form of differentiating between the various theories through an organizational grid based on two axes, managerial-critical and determinist-interpretative. This is a heuristic way of structuring the various possibilities.
We have reviewed orthodox treatments of management – as a set of technical competences, functionally necessary tasks, and universal roles and processes found in any work organization (1). For the traditionalist, managerial work is regarded as rational, morally and politically neutral, and its history and legitimacy are taken for granted. Mainstream texts obscure the politics of management. As Knights and Willmott put it, ‘That the means as well as the ends of management practice might be radically contested, displaced or resisted by anything other than “irrational” forces is beyond the comprehension of the orthodox literature on management.’ (2)
We have also presented alternative accounts of management, in which managerial work is seen to be socially embedded in a politically charged arena of structured and contested power relationships. (3) The debates on management practices involve competing perspectives or ideologies, and central to all ideologies is that they obfuscate and try to refute contradictions and paradoxes. (4) By exposing the limits of orthodox formulations of management, we hope to give you a more critical and realistic approach to studying organizational behaviour in general, and managing the employment relationship in particular.
We have emphasized that management studies must be able to deal with the new complexities and nuances. Strategic decisions typically change work organizations, employment relations and human behaviour. We explained that in multidivisional organizations, strategy formulation takes place at three levels – corporate, business and functional – to form a hierarchy of strategic decision making. Management strategies, as well as the national business system, dictate the choice of management policies and practices.
Caught up as we are in the drama of globalization there is a need for a multidimensional approach to the study of managerial behaviour. The need to adopt such an approach is emphasized by the observation by Clegg and his co-workers about post-industrial organizations:
‘The time-honoured distinctions between three levels of analysis – the individual, the organization, and the environment – are clearly breaking down. The previous certainty of discrete, self-contained individuals, fully informed by their roles in organizations, has been shattered. Now identity is far more complex matter formed inside and outside organizations, enduring multiple commitments and ties and only partially formed by organizational scripts.’ (5)
To help us deconstruct the many facets of organizational complexity we have used a three-dimensional management model. This encourages us to go beyond simply describing managerial behaviour, to provide an understanding of the contingencies that explain why managerial policies and behaviour vary in time and space. Managers’ behaviour does not follow the famous Fayolian management cycle. They are typically engaged in an assortment of frenetic, habitual, reactive, fragmented activities.
Footnotes
( 1) As discussed by, for example, Taylor ( 1911 ), Fayol ( 1949 ), Drucker ( 1954 ), Mintzberg ( 1973 ) and Kotter ( 1982 ).
(2) Knights and Willmott ( 1986 : 1 ).
(3) As discussed by, for example, Bendix ( 1956 ), Braverman ( 1974 ), Clegg ( 1989 ), Nichols ( 1969 ), Knights and Willmott ( 1986 ) and Salaman ( 1981 ).
(4) Godard ( 2005 ).
(5) Clegg et al. ( 1999 : 9 ).
Leadership is a dialectical process in which an individual persuades others to do something they would not otherwise do. It is a result of the interaction of the leader and followers in a specific context, and is equated with power. Leadership is not the same as management. Management is associated with functions such as planning, organizing, controlling and efficiency, whereas leadership is associated with vision making and significant change. Management processes produce a degree of order and consistency in work behaviour. Leadership processes produce significant change or movement.
To guide the reader through the immense terrain of leadership theory and practice, we provided a three-dimensional model that conceptualizes leadership as a relational phenomenon. We observed that leadership theories are typically classified according to the types of variables emphasized in a theory or empirical study.
We reviewed the major perspectives of leadership, including the trait, behaviour, contingency, power and gender-influenced approaches. We showed how the systematic research on leadership has evolved from a narrow focus on the leader’s traits to a multidimensional model of leadership, which looks at the exercise of leadership as a complex reciprocal process affected by the interaction among the leader, the followers, and the opportunities and constraints afforded by external and internal contexts in which they find themselves.
We have drawn attention to the disadvantages of individualistic-oriented charismatic and visionary leadership models. In the context of twenty-first century corporate scandals and a single-minded focus on shareholder value, there is the danger that:
‘Once people over-align themselves with a company, and invest excessive faith in the wisdom of its leaders, they are liable to lose their original sense of identity, tolerate ethical lapses they would have previously deplored, find a new and possibly corrosive value system taking root, and leave themselves vulnerable to manipulation by the leaders of the organization, and to whom they have mistakenly entrusted many of their vital interests.’ ( Tourish and Vashta, 2005)
To help counter this phenomenon we have drawn attention to some of the emerging theories of leadership which focus on power, social relations and the importance of reflexivity.
The study of organizational leadership in mainstream OB is ultimately concerned with organizational performance. Some research evidence supports the popular view that leaders, through their personal influence and behaviours, do make a difference to organizational performance. We emphasized that we should approach the issue of the leadership–performance link with at least one key question in mind: what types of performance data are available to measure the leadership–organizational performance link?
Footnote
Personality is the distinctive and relatively enduring pattern of thinking, feeling and acting that characterizes a person’s response to her or his environment. In this chapter, we have examined a number of different approaches to personality. Each of these theories offers a view of how personality forms.
Trait theorists try to identify and measure personality variables. They disagree concerning the number of traits needed to adequately describe personality. Raymond Cattell suggested a 16-factor model to capture personality dimensions, Eysenck offered a two-factor model, and McCrae and Costa suggested the ‘Big Five’ factor model. Traits have not proved to be highly consistent across situations, and they also vary in consistency over time.
We went on to examine Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, which views personality as an energy system. He divided the personality into three structures, the id, ego and superego. According to Freud, the dynamics of personality involve a continuous struggle between impulses of the id and the counterforces of the ego and superego.
Sociocultural theorists emphasize the social context, the subjective experiences of the individual, and deal with perceptual and cognitive processes. We examined the theory of Albert Bandura, a leading social-cognitive theorist, who suggests that neither personal traits nor the social context alone determine personality. A key concept is reciprocal determinism, relating to two-way causal relations between personal characteristics, behaviour and the environment.
Phenomenological theories, also known as humanistic theories, of personality were also examined. Influential humanist theorists such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers emphasize the positive, fulfilling experiences of life, and argue that the way people perceive and interpret their social experiences forms their personality. Self-actualization is viewed as an innate positive force that leads people to realize their positive potential, if they are not thwarted by the social context.
The chapter examined Mead’s theory of personality and his key concept of the ‘self’. He argues that people develop a personality by internalizing – or taking in – their immediate environment. He rejected the notion that the self is inherited and that personality is the product of biological inner impulses or drives, as argued by Sigmund Freud. According to Mead, the self develops only with social activity and social relationships.
Human resource professionals and managers use a variety of instruments and techniques to assess personality. These include the interview, inventories, behaviour assessment, personality tests and e-assessment. We noted also that to be useful to the organization, personality assessment instruments must conform to the standards of reliability and validity.
Perception is important in OB because the fundamental nature of perceptual processes means that individuals usually interpret other people and situations differently, and so routinely hold different views of reality, which in turn strongly influence their attitudes and actions. This means that avoiding conflict and ensuring important workplace decisions are based on sound judgements is not a matter of training people how to see things as they ‘really are’, because multiple realities always exist. More can be gained from understanding how perception works, and shaping organization activity so that the possibilities for negative outcomes are minimized.
‘Perception’ refers to the process by which our senses gather information from the environment and our brains make sense of that information. The perception process is characterized as inherently selective, subjective and largely automatic rather than conscious. It can be broken down into three steps or elements – receiving, organizing and interpreting – representing the path by which we mentally transform sensory stimuli from the environment into meaningful information.
The three elements of the perception process do not occur separately or in sequence, but overlap and sometimes occur in parallel. When perception proceeds from the sensory data received from the environment it is called ‘bottom-up’ information processing. In contrast, when perception begins with existing knowledge which is used to interpret the incoming data, it is called ‘top-down’ processing. Whereas bottom-up processing requires a lot of mental effort, top-down processing carries the risk of assumptions and jumping to the wrong conclusions, so some balance is required between in the use of these two perception strategies.
The processing limitations of our brains mean it is only because we employ selective attention that it is possible for us to experience the mass of sensory stimuli in the environment as orderly and meaningful. Our choice of what to attend to is driven by the environmental cues that are most salient, or by our own motivations, expectations and goals. This selectivity is highly resource-efficient, but the downside is that we can miss crucial bits of information and form misleading perceptions of what we are experiencing. If we then act on those perceptions we may suffer serious consequences.
Existing knowledge has a powerful effect on how we perceive new experiences. We store knowledge in the form of mental models, or schemata: packages of related content (for instance thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes) about people, situations and roles. Schemata do develop over time but do not change much once formed, because they act as lenses by which we view new information. New data that is inconsistent with what we ‘know’ is simply reinterpreted to fit. In perception, when one bit of information related to a schema is brought to mind, everything else in the package comes to mind also, so we can very quickly make sense of something on the basis of a small bit of information. But these stable, automatic linkages between thoughts can be unhelpful, as in the case of stereotypes. Although we can choose not to act upon stereotypes, it may not be possible to stop them coming to mind in the first place.
Two specific classes of perceptions were identified that hold particular significance for organizations. The causes that people perceive (or attribute) for particular outcomes will significantly affect their future expectations and behaviour. If a person sees a failure to meet a goal as the result of stable, internal causes – like intelligence – she or he is less likely to try again than if she/he perceives the cause of the failure to be more about his/her circumstances at the time. This knowledge is important for understanding individual performance and motivation. The second class of perceptions, employees’ views of justice and fairness in the workplace is significant because they impact on the employment relationship. If employees perceive that they are being treated unfairly by the organization, it will negatively influence their work attitudes and motivation. The difficulty is that employees and employers are very likely to perceive things differently by virtue of their respective roles and experiences, so to ensure that employees feel fairly treated is a particular challenge for organizations.
There has been a growing interest in learning in organizations, as contemporary management thinking and practice emphasize notions of knowledge work, flexibility, core competencies and sustainable competitive advantage through learning.
Learning can be defined as a relatively permanent change in behaviour or human capabilities resulting from processing new knowledge, practice or experience. In organizations the quality of this learning experience may depend on how the organization is structured, how work is designed, how individuals engage, interact and construct knowledge from these paid work situations, and how managers lead their subordinates. Learning in organizations can take any one of the following four forms: formal, non-formal, informal and incidental.
We examined classical approaches to learning which focused on how internal mental events such as learning might be measured and studied through Pavlovian conditioning, and the importance of reinforcement in the learning process.
The cognitive approach to learning was also examined. The Gestalt theorists, as they were known, proposed that human consciousness could not be investigated adequately by unscrambling its component parts, but only by investigating its overall shape or pattern. Proponents of this school of thought believe that cognitive processes – how individuals perceive, evaluate feedback, represent, store and use information – play an important role in learning.
The third classical approach we examined related to social-learning theories. This suggests that individuals learn and develop through observational learning. That is, people learn by observing others – role models – whom they believe are credible and knowledgeable.
We examined some contemporary approaches to learning – activity theory and community of practice – and explained that social-learning theory underpins the concept of a community of practice, which has been the subject of some debate in the adult learning literature. For example, an extreme position is that there is little need for formal classroom-based learning because effective learning only occurs through the engagement of community membership.
We also discussed how psychologically driven learning theories began to give way to learning theories that articulated the unique characteristics of adult learning, and examined four perspectives that attempt to understand adult learning in general and adult learning in work: the andragogy, self-directed, transformational and sociocultural approaches.
Finally, we stated that modern approaches to learning in organizations contain elements of cognitive, behaviourist and andragogical concepts, such as self-direction, critical reflection, learning from experience and transformational learning, and adult educators are increasingly aware of the importance of the sociocultural context in which adult learning takes place in the workplace and the wider community.
This chapter has emphasized the centrality of motivation in the employment relationship. Motivation refers to the driving force within individuals that affects the direction, intensity and persistence of their work behaviour in the interest of achieving organizational goals.
We examined two broad competing approaches to understanding motivation, need-based and process theories. According to Maslow’s needs hierarchy, employee behaviour is directed toward satisfying lower-level needs before seeking to satisfy higher-order needs. It is based on the principle that when a drive or need is met, its value as a motivator is reduced. Maslow’s theory helps to explain the dynamic nature of work motivation. It recognizes that needs and drives change continuously in everyday life. Behavioural theorists adopting the needs or content model of work motivation assume that when a person’s need is not satisfied, the person experiences internal tension or states of deficiency, and this motivates the person to change behaviour to satisfy that need (Kanter, 1990). All the need theories tend to be heavily prescriptive in nature, since as well as assuming workers share a common set of basic needs, they also attempt to identify what needs prompt their behaviour.
The practical implications of needs-based motivation theories are that managers need to recognize that different employees have different needs at different times, to avoid relying on pay as a sole source of work motivation, and to balance the demands and influences of the different innate drives.
We explained how process theories of work motivation place emphasis on the actual psychological process of motivation. According to the equity theory, perceptions of equity or inequity lead employees to form judgements on the value (or valence) of a reward or outcome. When an employee or group of employees perceives a reward item to be inequitable, the individual or group will not be satisfied by that reward. This dissatisfaction will result in the individuals or work groups not finding the outcome attractive, and to that extent the reward or outcome will not be effective in motivating the employees.
Expectancy theory is based on the idea that work motivation results from deliberate choices to engage in certain behaviours in order to achieve worthwhile outcomes. The three most important elements of expectancy theory are the perception that effort will result in a particular level of performance (E → P), the perception that a specific behaviour or action will lead to specific outcomes (P → O), and the perceived value of those outcomes, the valences. The attractiveness of work activities (their valence) depends on an employee’s individual differences, cultural factors and orientation to work.
This chapter had two principal objectives. Our first objective was to provide a critical evaluation of the psychologically oriented motivation models. Our second principal objective was to provide a sociological treatment of the subject. We have suggested that if we are to understand what motivates people in the workplace, we must go beyond psychological notions of individual needs and cognitive processes. We need to incorporate into any analysis the dynamics of employment relations, the way work organizations and managerial control of work activities generate and express internal tensions and contradictions, and the effects of complex interconnecting levels of domination, which stem from the class, gender and race relations in society.
Chapter 10: Equity in organizations: issues of gender, race, disability and class
We began this chapter with the claim that understanding issues of equity across the major social divisions of society is vital for a full understanding of organizational behaviour. We explored the general and specific tensions in organizations that make the issues of equity, inequity and justice a relevant topic for learning and research. Vertical and horizontal conflicts were shown to help us understand the complex forms of power that play out across organizations.
Some suggest that the institution of work, including practices in work organizations, divisions in pay, and related issues such as access to training and employment, has become fundamentally more equitable over the years. We argue that this is only partially correct. There is still lots to be done.
Women, people from ethno-racial minorities, people who are disabled, and the working class (and all the combinations of these categories) continue to face major difficulties in gaining just and equitable treatment in relation to paid work. Students and scholars of organizational behaviour will benefit from a broader appreciation of these dynamics to inform the direction of future learning and research. Taken together, the vast majority of people in our society are subject to some form of discrimination. This begs the question, if the vast majority of people experience systematic inequities in relation to work, why is it so difficult to realize significant, positive change? Some of the answers to this question lie within the realm of existing OB research, but, many others have not yet been addressed. To address these questions of equity it is necessary to take a fundamental look at how work and society is organized. Through some of the inter-disciplinary dimensions of this chapter, we hope readers will start on that journey of further exploration.
Chapter 11: Work groups and teams
In this chapter we have examined the background, nature and behavioural implications of work groups. We have suggested that the current wave of interest in team-based work structures is linked to business strategy and the perceived shortcomings of large bureaucratic organizational structures.
The nature of work groups was explored through the concepts of size, norms, cohesiveness and group learning. Management try to persuade workers of the need for working beyond contract for the ‘common’ good and to engage in self-regulatory norms. The self-managed work team is said to be upskilling and empowering workers.
However we have also gone beyond management rhetoric, and presented arguments and evidence to suggest that self-managed teams shift the focus away from the hierarchy, directive and bureaucratic control processes, to a culture of self-control mechanisms.
The discussion has emphasized that orthodox and critical accounts of teamworking provide very different views of this form of work organization and employment relations. Both perspectives however conceptualize teamworking as influencing individual behaviour and contributing to improved organizational performance. While both approaches make employee autonomy central to their analyses, each conceptualizes team membership as having a different influence. Additionally, autonomy is theorized as leading to different outcomes (such as growth need versus self-regulation) in each perspective.
We have explained that the nature of the communication process established in the organization reflects the management style, degree of employee participation, culture and efficiency in the workplace. Knowledge of theories clarifies our understanding of organizational communications and enables us to explain a variety of practical issues, such as where the idea of the organization originated and what motivates people to work.
It is important not to give one theory prominence over another. The three major perspectives for understanding organizational communications – functionalist, interpretivist and critical – allow us to comprehend the central role communications has in the management process. The metaphors used to describe the perspectives – for example machine, organism and psychic prison – enhance our ability to view communications as not just about the transmission and exchange of information in the context of organizational efficiency, but rather as central to the other processes of power, leadership and decision making.
We have emphasized that individuals engage with their world through specific codes and practices (verbal, non-verbal and written language). Language creates the organizational concepts that define the culture of an organization and give form to notions of control, delegation and rationality. Meetings are an example of the management of meaning. The choice of media, interaction and personal dynamics are part of the creation of texts within an organization, which in turn contribute to the establishment of its culture.
We went on to explain how an understanding of the cultural and organizational dynamics of cross-cultural communications will enhance organizational effectiveness and business performance. E. T. Hall provides a useful system for understanding the communication implications of culture, both verbal and non-verbal.
Research has revealed differences between the conversational styles of men and women. As managers women try to develop rapport with colleagues, whereas men often report information or problems. It is important to embrace and welcome diversity in the organization to facilitate creativity and encourage the learning community. However, there are paradoxes tied up with the concepts of individual, micro and macro identities, and these might inhibit full participation in the organization. Although workers might apparently be encouraged to be creative, the organization typically places limitations on where, how and when they can speak.
The material reviewed in this chapter illustrates that managers are aware of the importance of persuasive communication in their role as negotiators. The growth of teams, globalization and the need to retain employees require managers to acquire expertise as accomplished presenters of rational arguments. Knowledge of the rhetorical context of the communication process enables the manager to create a managerially biased social reality.
When in July 2006 the owners of the TV company CHUM Ltd decided to sell their company to Bell Globemedia of Canada, 281 people became redundant. Peter Murdoch, media vice-president of the Communications Energy and Paperworks Union, which represents employees in CHUM newsrooms said, ‘It’s absolutely a sense of betrayal. It’s a sense of bewilderment.’ From a different angle, CHUM chief executive Jay Switzer commenting on the sale said, ‘This is a challenged sector and we have some work to do’ ( quoted by Grant Robertson, 2006: ‘Layoff s come as a deal is unveiled,’ Globe and Mail , 13 July, p. A 6) . Such decisions by top managers impact on people almost on a daily basis in the corporate world.
Decision making, the conscious process of making choices from among several alternatives to achieve a desired course of action, is said to be perhaps the most important management function. We have explained that decision making is central to managers’ ability to alter the activities of the organization, influence the behaviour of employees, and is at the heart of relationships of class and gender domination. Decision making is a complex phenomenon because it involves technical problems and power struggles. We have addressed a number of questions in this chapter, including how managers make decisions, how groups influence decision making, and how decision making can be improved.
We have explained that the dynamics of organizations create a need for decision making. Decision can be viewed as being primarily concerned with the allocation of resources and exercise of power. The neoclassical rational model of decision making has eight steps: identify the problem, define the objectives to be met, make a decision of who to involve in the solution and how to make the decision, generate alternatives, evaluate those alternatives, make a choice from among the alternatives, implement the choice, and follow up on the results of the decision. As decisions lead to actions and the discovery of new problems, another cycle of the rational model is begun.
In reality, decision makers must suffer from bounded rationality. They do not have free and easy access to information, and the human mind has limited information-processing capacity and is susceptible to a variety of cognitive biases. Time constraints and political considerations can outweigh anticipated economic gain.
The neoclassical rational model neglects to factor into the process the effects of gender on individual and group decision making. Nor does it consider social factors, such as how social norms and expectations frame sense-making or problem definition, and the decision-making process. We have reviewed some of the literature that suggests that women construct and value knowledge in ways that are relational and oriented more towards sustaining relationships than achieving autonomy and power. The notion that women have a different voice and take a more holistic view of reality suggests that decision-making processes are influenced by the gender balance of the decision makers.
Groups can often make higher-quality decisions than individuals can because of their vigilance and their potential capacity to generate and evaluate more ideas. Also, group members might accept more readily a decision in which they have been involved. However, groups might experience groupthink and also make decisions that are more risky or conservative than those of individuals.
Organizations are increasingly concerned about their members making ethical decisions. One response has been to develop codes of conduct so that individual decision makers with different moral standards and bases of moral judgment will have a consistent basis for their decisions.
Finally, traditionally decision making remains associated with a ‘command and control’ vision of management, as well as a vision of managers as omnipresent and omnipotent. Decision making in the organization can be improved by using four group structures which help to minimize the biases and errors: brainstorming, nominal group technique, computer-mediated-brainstorming, and the Delphi technique.
Chapter 14: Power, politics and conflict
In this chapter we began with broad theory, to provide a basis for a better appreciation of grounded research at the work organization level. Commonsense views of power were outlined to explore the half-truths in them. Power appears to us to be ‘embodied’ in individuals, as something they possess and exert. However, macro theories of power show that there are many deep social roots or ‘sources’ of power systems, including the influences of ideology, military, politics and economics. Gramsci and Foucault outlined perhaps the most extensive theories of power, noting that it is anywhere and everywhere, because it constitutes the very way we talk and think about ourselves, let alone our organizational surroundings. Importantly, these two authors argue that power is a coin with two sides: on the one, consent, accommodation and domination; on the other, lack of commitment, stress, resistance, political action and ‘voice’.
This knowledge was then applied to a critical look at key examples of work organization research. Collinson is a representative example of the new social analysis of organization, which links old industrial sociology with labour process theory and contemporary analysis of meaning and identity in the workplace. We then explored some key examples of OB research that deal directly with the concept of ‘power’. The OB field has hardly seen a flood of research on the topic of ‘power’, and when it does consider this, it usually adds the prefix ‘perceived’, further limiting the strength of its analysis. Nevertheless, some fascinating and provocative findings and debates were detailed.
Clearly not all power, authority and influence is bad. Good parenting, teaching, policing, political advocacy, and in a certain sense management, can be understood as positive influences. The question of legitimacy, which in turn evokes questions of larger political and economic systems, comes into play as we recognize that there are two main justifications for disobedience to authority. One is when a subject is commanded to do something outside the legitimate range of the commanding authority, and the other is when the history of acquiring the commanding authority is no longer considered legitimate or acceptable (which includes being an unjust burden).
These types of challenge to authority, building from the Gramscian and possibly the Foucauldian models above, start with recognizing people’s complicity in the taken-for- granted nature of systems of power, or rather hegemonic blocs of assumptions. Challengers dare to articulate these taken-for-granted assumptions in order to engage in rational analysis of legitimacy. What some refer to as a crisis in organizational commitment or loyalty may be the thin edge of this kind of wedge. That is, it represents the removal of blind obedience, an erosion of the ‘other side’ of the power coin, consent and complicity. Managers as well as workers (and students of OB!) have a right to think through and question the sources of legitimacy. Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and others operated on the principle of removal of consent, which for our purposes relates directly to a broad, social perspective on power.
Chapter 15: Organizational design and culture
We have attempted to cover a wide range of complex issues in this chapter. Organizational structure refers to the formal division of work or labour, and the formal pattern of relationships that coordinate and control organizational activities, whereas organizational design refers to the process of creating a structure that best fits a strategy, technology and environment.
The three core dimensions of formal organizational structure – complexity, formalization and centralization – can be combined into different types or models. Three descriptive models were examined: mechanistic, bureaucratic and organic. The mechanistic organization has been characterized as a machine. It is characterized by highly specialized tasks that tend to be rigidly defined, a hierarchical authority and control structure, and communications that primarily take the form of edicts and decisions issued by managers to subordinates. Communication typically flows vertically from the top down. Thus it has high complexity, high formalization and high centralization. A mechanistic organization resembles a bureaucracy. A bureaucratic organization is a rational and systematic division of work. Within it, rules and techniques of control are precisely defined. A bureaucratic design allows for large-scale accomplishments. The disadvantages associated with bureaucracy include suppression of initiative through over control.
Organic organizations are the antithesis of mechanistic organizations. They are characterized by being low in complexity, formality and centralization. A post-bureaucratic organizational structure, such as team-based structures and those produced by business process reengineering, is organic and highly adaptable. However, the binary bureaucratic/post-bureaucratic view of organizational design may be a somewhat misleading analytical device.
The contingency view of formal organizational design focuses on strategy, size, technology and environment. A change in business strategy may require changing the manufacturing process and the organizational design: for example, moving from a functional to a team-based organizational structure. Large organizations will tend to be more centralized and have more rules and techniques of control. Organizations with complex non-routine technologies will tend to have more complex organizational arrangements. Organizations with routine technologies will tend to use written rules and procedures to control people’s behaviour, and decision making will be more centralized than in establishments using non-routine technologies.
An organization’s external environment can range from ‘stable’ to ‘dynamic’ and from ‘hostile’ to ‘munificent’. Distinct external environments help explain divergent patterns of managerial behaviour and organizational structure. For example, organic configurations are better suited to dynamic and hostile environments so that organizational members can adapt faster to changes.
The external context has a significant impact on managerial and employee behaviour. The external domain influences the formal structure and functioning of a work organization, and in turn organization leaders influence the wider society. The linkage between external contexts and the search for competitive advantage through employee performance and managerial activities is complex. We have therefore emphasized that OB studies must be able to deal with the new complexities and nuances. Today, caught up as we are in the drama of globalization, there is a need for a multi-dimensional approach to the study of OB.
We explored the nature of organizational culture – a pattern of shared basic assumptions, beliefs, values, myths, stories and rituals – which has become closely associated with organizational redesign and management theory around strategic HRM. Two approaches to the study of culture were examined. For the managerially oriented, organizational culture is treated as a variable: it is something that an organization has, and it can be managed. For critically oriented scholars, organizations are seen as if they were cultures, a metaphor which emphasizes the symbolic, consciousness and subjective aspects of the formal workplace.
The analysis offered here provides a guide to how formal organizational structure helps shape the behaviour of managers and employees. The contingency elements identified – strategy, size, technology, environment, culture and HRM systems – are not separate, but integrated and linked in complex ways. It is within this integrated framework that interpretations of competing resources, conversations and interests take place, and influence people’s behaviour in many ways.
Chapter 16: Technology in work organizations
Comparative international analyses of concepts and theoretical debates, as well as policies and programmes, provide an important basis for understanding how technology is related to work and OB. We suggest a broad, multi-levelled approach that suggests technology should be thought of as a social phenomenon, recognizing both consent and conflict in processes of adoption. In reviewing these areas, we are aided by a general understanding of the ideologies of technological thought, which we summarized early on. How do specific technologies and attempts at technological adoption relate to the technocratic, substantive, constructivist or critical approaches? For example, how do the substantive critiques of Heidegger or Ellul colour the messages offered by the likes of Negroponte, Castells and Reich? (Negroponte, 1995; Castells, 1996; Reich, 1991). What can the constructivist approach of Suchman, Latour or Callon add to the deskilling/enskilling debates surrounding ICT, work and OB, and so on?
After reading this chapter, a variety of answers to these and other questions should begin to emerge, but perhaps more importantly you should be in a better position to understand, evaluate and perhaps even affect the current landscape and direction of ICT, work and related issues. These are all important matters in our society today.
Chapter 17: Human resource management
In this chapter we examined the development of HRM, and emphasized that it is a product of its times, linked to the ascendancy of a new political and economic ideology and the changed conditions of national and global capitalism.
We examined three widely cited HRM models. The US models include Fomberg et al. and Beer et al. One European HRM model developed by British academics, Hendry and Pettigrew, extends Beer’s Harvard framework by drawing on its analytical aspects, connecting the outer (wider environment) and inner (organizational) contexts, and exploring how HRM adapts to changes in the context.
We discussed a core assumption underlying much of the SHRM research and literature, that each of the main types of generic competitive strategies used by organizations (such as a cost leadership or differentiation strategy) is associated with a different approach to managing people: that is, with a different HR strategy.
We examined the so-called ‘matching model’ and the ‘resource-based’ SHRM model. The former focuses on the notion of ‘fit’, while the latter places emphasis on an organization’s human endowments as a strategy for sustained competitive advantage. Paradox is an ongoing part of the employment relationship. The more critical evaluations of HRM expose internal paradoxes.
The driving force behind the growth of interest in strategic IHRM and IHRM is the resurgence of neoliberalism and the unprecedented growth in global markets. Critics argue that unfettered markets have created a new international division of labour, causing the transfer of manufacturing jobs from high-wage old industrialized regions to low-wage developing economies. They also argue that international HRM tends to emphasize the subordination of national culture and national employment practices to corporate culture and HR practices.
The cross-national transfer of Anglo-Saxon HR practices for recruitment and selection, rewards, training and development, and performance appraisal will require some degree of cultural sensitivity, as well as consultation with host-country nationals about local suitability.
Despite the economic and political pressures from globalization, a divergence of HR practices continues to remain. This is influenced and shaped by national and organizational cultures in the developed and the developing world. Variations in national regulatory systems, labour markets, business-related institutions, and cultural and polyethnic contexts are likely to constrain or shape any tendency towards ‘convergence’ or a ‘universal’ model of ‘better’ HR practice. The sheer variation of economies, national institutional profiles and cultures makes claims for convergence simplistic and problematic.
© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd - Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, RG21 6XS, England
Legal Notice | Privacy Policy | North American site | Contact us