Strengths and weaknesses of post-modern organization theory - Essay Example

?STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF POST-MODERN ORGANIZATION THEORY By Strengths and Weaknesses of Post-modern Organization Theory Post-modern organization theory challenges the fundamentals of modernism by questioning the strength of its assumptions and standpoints. According to the various representations of this theory, many of the presumed positions of organizations relate to the transaction and competition for power and dominance between competing perspectives, systems, or processes (Linstead, 2004, p. 144). Post-modern organization theory reviews the assumptions of power in terms of the manner in which they articulate themselves as the central foci of organizational behavior. Modernism elevated certain positions and naturalized them in a way that posed obstacles in probing some of the key assumptions, which indeed have been found to lack substance and merit. Many of the givens about order, structure, communication, and the division of roles have been adjudged as transactions of power between two or more competing perspectives. On this note, it becomes important to consider the application of power in a way that reviews and possibly adjusts the positions that were previously held firmly within the understanding of modernism. In essence, post-modern theory of organization seeks to relax the strict positions promoted within the structures of modernism (Hatch, & Cunliffe, 2013, p. 60). Such a process relates to the imagining of the positions, roles, and processes of management and the elevation of various positions that were built on seemly irreducible principles. The increasing of alternatives in standard procedures have opened avenues for experimentation with new systems. The fluid natures of the markets, the flexibility of commercial processes have moved the center of organizational expression from the previous positions in ways that connect well within the different positions that are adopted within current systems. Changes in organizational culture and the impact of globalization and liberalization are viewed as some of the landmark factors, which have influenced the emergence of fresh perspectives on the organization in terms of systems and structures (Hatch, & Cunliffe, 2013, p. 11). In the current processes of organization, the manifestations of many changes within the organization are considered as outgrowths of the dominant ideology. The post-modern theory of organization contests the view that the traditional and conventional systems of organization are natural (Linstead, 2004). Instead, the theory affirms that all such processes are transient, flexible, and socially constructed. The internal workings of such systems is created in a way that makes it to respond to certain aspects of change that connect with change. Interpretations of the primacy of conventional and standardized systems as designed by modernism are entrenched within unyielding perspectives that promote the notion of absolute truths and systems. Such arguments have been used to promote authoritarian styles of leadership and organizational structure as understood together with other ideas that affirm the primacy of systems and processes. In the analysis of the manner in which an organization determines the order of its structure, theorists have sought parallels and precedents from past and existing systems. The force of history and the high value of metanarratives that determine the nature of processes are some of the qualifying factors, which help entrench the systems that have been naturalized by the force of modernisms (Hancock & Tyler, 2001). According to critics of modernism, the aspect of modernism seeks to establish firm positions and to impose laws and procedures in ways that leave little room for the expression of alternative thought. It has often been argued that the substance of modernism connects the positions held by the dominant powers and implants them onto all other systems in order to defeat every effort that attempts to demonstrate some desire for alternatives. Corporate bodies and other organizations tend to enjoin the practice of their internal and external processes to specific theoretical frameworks. Establishing the actual dimension of theories and processes could be determined in terms of the various challenges that attend to the differences in organizations and the manner in which they connect to certain changes within their systems (Hancock & Tyler, 2001, p. 18). It might be important to consider the fact that certain processes require the establishment of methods and processes that align with the dominant principles and practices of the time. On the other hand, some systems choose to work outside the established systems in order to meet the thresholds of reality as established within the element of diversity. The compelling forces of organizations usually work in terms of the different ways in which they assess their performance organize their strategies and determine the welfare of the employees. Organizations base their systems and operations on certain policies. Organizational culture is one of the areas that has shown a direct impact of postmodernism in the present world. Since the dawn of the twenty first century, the philosophy and practice of organization has undergone radical shifts that have redefined values and entrenched fluctuations and fluidity in official processes and structural representation of matters as understood within the element of post-modernism. The loosening of restrictions in the dress code in many firms and the reviewing of the stringent rules of office etiquette are illustrations of the shifts that continue to occur on the plane of organization (Hancock & Tyler, 2001). Like any other understanding of culture, the cultural influences of post-modernism as understood within the context of culture features certain material and non-material aspects of culture. The materialism and non-materialism could represent themselves through dress and language respectively. The core differences between materialism and non-materialism often captures some element of change that defined the manner in which people and organizations represent themselves in the refined forms of culture. Many organizations have switched from adopting strict official dressing at the work place to the adoption of smart casual in order to allow for the free expression of liberal thought within the organization. Changing of the dress code and allowing the element of free thought is an affirmation of the primacy of the human subject above the system (Hancock & Tyler, 2001, p. 73). Such changes embody the spirit of post-modernism in the sense that they situate the human agent at the center of action. Post-modernism in organization challenges the modernist perceptions that often elevate superficial laws and structures above the employees in a manner that diminishes the value of the human being within the system (Clegg, 2006). The practices illustrate an acknowledgement that the modernist assumptions that elevate systems above individuals are essentially born out of cultural conceptions and lack the support of objective assessment. An important strength of the post-modern theory of organization is that it distributes power within areas and regions that were initially considered as subordinate in the general structure of the organization. Such distribution begins with the redefinition of processes and renaming of titles. The change from such titles as chairman to chairperson are indicative of the erasure of the gender discrimination that were evident in the past systems that anchored on the modernist perspectives, which entrench hierarchies that tend to entrench the male gender above the female gender in many discourses (Clegg, 2006). Such excuses have been used to deny the ascendancy of women to positions of power basing on certain structural challenges that defeat their growth. Other changes have included the redefining of terms such as terms such as subordinate staff or auxiliary staff to supportive staff to encourage the element of equity in the systems. The kind of policies under which an organization operates gives indications of the theoretical foundation of the organization. An examination of the policy frameworks of many corporate bodies usually provides a hint as to the nature of laws that operationalize the processes. Instead the performance of the industries could be examined in terms of the different forces within the system and the level of influence with certain operational bases. An overriding concern of the issues of management within the organization could be considered in terms of the kind of systems that are instituted for the purpose of enabling progress and expansion within the organization (Clegg, 2006). The level of control that works within various systems of organization require the matching of objectives to methods. Well-planned systems are often determined by the degree to which the management utilizes talents and skills towards the achieving of certain objectives. Critics of conventional and traditional models of organization contend that the systems are inimical to creativity (Casey, 2001, p. 110). The systems are generally built on certain foundations that underpin the various systems and organizational processes because they conflate certain conditions of growth within the dominant systems of the organizational set up. Certain issues that determine the working of an organization are ultimately reducible to the aspect of distance between the various theories that attempt to lay stress on certain beliefs of organizational discourse. The determination of the merits of any argument could be determined through the various processes that attempt to affirm the supremacy of conventions and standards over goal-oriented approaches (Casey, 2001). The process of management in the context of organization should build on the theoretical dimensions in order to achieve a significant level of competence and productivity. Organizational process have often been understood in terms of a science that seeks to entrench certain processes for the purpose of enhancing productivity. The art and science of organization often entails the adoption of systems that promote the various attributes of management. It might be necessary to consider the fact that the various aspects of organization are ultimately reducible to the strategies and structure of the human agent and the system within which a particular form of organization works. On this matter, it has often been argued that the kind of challenge that connects with the element of change require the determination of the various processes within the systems which help in the creation of order and balance within the various systems (Tsoukas & Chia, 2011). Organization entails a range of factors. Some of the factors that are included within the element of the organization include management, structure, organizational culture, channels of communication, rules, regulations, and the different aspects of applicable systems that enable the coming together of the various systems as understood within the aspect of the organization. In general, the determination of the levels of success and the resolution of certain difficulties within the ranks of the management has to be considered in totality as outward features of organization. Increasingly, companies and organizations have demonstrated a determined shift from traditions and conventional systems that constituted the metanarrative of organization (Tsoukas & Chia, 2011). Consequences of these shifts have been felt in terms of success and challenges on the financial front and other aspects of general performance. On this matter it becomes important to consider the fact that some of the issues that determine the impact of organizational change require the input of various assumptions, propositions, and theories that attempt to demonstrate the difference between organizational strategies and other attendant issues. Comparative analyses of the theories of modernism and post-modern theories often begin with the assessment of the merits and demerits of the different aspects of organization. Companies that demonstrate high levels of performance tend to be flexible on the matter of policies and the application of systems as shown within the various aspects that determine variations in the performance (Casey, 2001). The comparative advantage accrues from the fact that some of the most dominant issues of success are based on the realization of the various issues that attend to the development of capacities, synergies, and opportunities within an organization with the view of providing space for stakeholders. It might be necessary to consider the fact that some of the issues that determine the levels of success within the company connect with both the outward and internal systems of the organization. It might be necessary to consider the fact that the processes of globalization and liberalization have removed the barriers that traditionally zoned off certain parts of the world as complete reserves for certain interests. With the removal of such barriers, companies, businesses, and organizations have sought to establish their presence beyond their spheres of influence (Tsoukas & Chia, 2011). Geographical movements often require some aspect of change in policies and rules in order to connect with the challenges and processes in such areas. Fulfilling such wishes requires that companies and organizations transit from old forms of organization to newer forms that recognize the reality of multiplicity in meaning and application of organizational processes (Cunliffe, & Luhman, 2012, p. 40). On this matter it might be argued that some of the issues that determine the relevance of organizational theory include the acknowledgement of the complex nature of the global realities that make it possible for the creation of a singular platform for change and other processes. Organizational change occurs due to a multiplicity of reasons. Some of the factors that attend to the processes of organizational change have to be considered in terms of the different aspects of strategies and influences that necessitate change. On this matter, it becomes necessary to consider the fact that the various influences of change require the creation of various factors that connect appropriately with the strategies and general objectives of change. Supporters of the theory of post-modernism argue that the theory fits into the modern economic realities that defy rules and order in the pursuit of higher goals (Cunliffe, & Luhman, 2012). The changing nature of the modern operational environment requires strategic positioning by organizations in order to absorb the shock of changes that often accompany the development and destruction of systems that are built on permanent structures. A key advantage of post-modernism is that it consists of internal flexibility that allows it to morph into new systems with great ease in the pursuit of certain strategic goals. For example, past models of organizations sought to establish singular lines of command within large organizations such as financial institutions and other big businesses of a multinational nature (Bendl, 2004). This practice is consistent with the theory of modernism in the sense that it embraces the aspect of order within such organizations. However, such kinds of organizations often feature increased elements of risk in the event of an adverse economic phenomenon that affects a key feature of the organizations. On the other hand, organizations such as the Virgin Group, which embrace the theoretical model of post-modernism in the adoption of semi-autonomous units that feature some level of financial independence. Any adverse effect on one member of the group does not necessarily affect the other members. As such, it would not be easy to witness a general collapse of such organizations in the event of happenings such as the global financial crisis. In this regard, it might be necessary to consider the fact that the determination of the element of balance within organizations must engage certain aspects of diversity and sense of security for sustainability and longevity of the organizations. The collapse of major banks and corporations during the global financial crisis was explained, in part, as a consequence of modernist kinds of control that lacked flexibility and semi-autonomy within branches. One of the dominant features of post-modern organization theory is that it attempts to redefine issues and practices by presenting the possibility of increased chances and opportunities for engaging in alternative pursuits of power. On this matter, it is often acknowledged that some of the matters that affect the processes of organization require some form of balance in order to determine their degree of feasibility (Linstead, 2004, p. 108). Critics of post-modernism argue that the theory supports aspects of rebellion by presenting arguments that challenge the possibility of central command. Chaos and disorder, according to the critics, would naturally follow the establishment of such a system in the sense that it weakens the kind of order that comes naturally with centralized forms of control. Lack of protocol and multiple centers of power, according to the critics, would ultimately lead to internal inconsistencies and managerial challenges within organizations. In essence, it might be held that the kind of balance that exists within the structural order of power in modernist concepts of organization assures some form of stability. According to the critics of the post-modernist theory of organization, such order would collapse when it confronts the need for sustainable structures and processes as advocated within the general framework of the economy (Hatch, & Cunliffe, 2013, p. 43). It might be argued that some of the issues that attend to the aspect of post-modern organizations derive their power from a range of factors that determine the capacity of systems to operate under shifting economic environments and the unpredictable nature of power as seen within the concepts of power and balance. In essence the strengths of postmodern theory of organization could be examined from the manner in which it offers opportunity to individuals and systems that suffered due to structural obstacles that impeded their growth under the selective and discriminative structures of modernism. These opportunities have been achieved due to the redefinition of concepts, redesigning of structures, and reviewing of order within organization. A major weakness cited in the theory is the liberal spirit and the sense of flexibility that could create disharmony in systems if not properly managed. Works Cited Bendl, R 2004, Revisiting organization theory: Integration and deconstruction of gender and transformation of organization theory, Lang, Frankfurt. Casey, C 2001, Critical Analysis of Organizations: Theory, Practice, Revitalization, Sage Publications, London. Clegg, S 2006, The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, SAGE, London. Cunliffe, A, L & Luhman, T, T 2012, Key Concepts in Organization Theory, SAGE, London. Hancock, P, & Tyler, M 2001, Work, postmodernism and organization: A critical introduction, SAGE, London. Hatch, M, J, & Cunliffe, A, L 2013, Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Linstead, S 2004, Organization theory and postmodern thought, SAGE, London. Tsoukas, H, & Chia, R, C, H 2011, Philosophy and organization theory, Emerald, Bingley, UK. Read More