Alternative Perspectives on Management - Coursework Example

? ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON MANAGEMENT BY PRESENTED Alternative Perspectives on Management Koontz & Weihrich (1990) broadlydefines the current management system as the process of designing and maintaining an environment that enables individuals, working as teams, to accomplish the selected aims efficiently. From this scenario, it implies that management involves establishment of a bureaucracy deriving its importance from a need to have strategic planning, directing, coordinating, controlling, and more importantly, having a larger function of decision making in the organization. Thus management involves achieving competencies in human resources management, administration, and organizational leadership among others areas (Koontz & Weihrich, 1990). In addition, organizational image and identity refers to that which is most central, distinct and most enduring about an organization. In other words the image and identity refers to “who we are as an organization” (Whatten & Mackey, 2002). This definition indicates the other organization and ‘we’ are one and the same thing, which cannot be separated by any means. For example, a Human resource manager is involved in recruiting, training, and creating policies to motivate and retain the workforce within an organization. In performing these functions, the HRM performs a political function by creating and allocating people to positions of power within the organization (Devanna et al, 1981), and how payments and rewards are distributed. On the other hand, the manager is functional as they have to design policies and strategies that have to ensure the recruited employees contribute to development and improvement of the firm. The manager performs a rational activity by having well organized and structured policies that will help in achieving certain ends to the benefit of the company while at the same time rewarding employees for their input. Likewise organization image is a political process as it uses the power of influencing perception. An organization has to improve its image so as to appear more aligned within a certain goal, which influences public’s perception. The strategies and policies put in place to enhance and achieve this image constitute the functional process. Its rationality is in the purpose of achieving an end, which is attracting more customers and investors through improved corporate image, while at the same time gaining the support of employees. However, the current developments in organizational study have resulted into critical theories that find the mainstream management to be poorly structured in effectively addressing all the concerns of stakeholders (Adler, Forbes, Willmott, 2007) This is because; the current management structure gives more advantage to managers; sometimes misuse these positions to benefit the organization at the cost of stakeholders. According to Contu & Willmott (2003) there is unstable institutionalization of power within capitalist type of organizations where profit making is the sole purpose of such organizations. On the other hand, Lukes (2005) explains organizations that have decisions emanating from the decision makers only have one dimensional power prevailing in decision making, instead of having an agenda control type of decision making. As Heydebrand (2007) elaborates, the new organizational critic theories argue that the basic importance of power at the very initial level of management is to prevent grievances and unnecessary conflicts through consent. It seeks to define the social reality including what people are actually thinking, acting, feeling and shaping the very definition of what is free and unfree, good and evil, or true or false (Heydebrand, 2009, Herbamas, 1990). Thus management conflict is central to important functions in the organizations such as bargaining, mediation in labor laws, other extra legal disputes, and negotiations (Stone, 2001). Largely, these are the major lacking attributed in the mainstream management approach, where power is exercised to the benefit of the company to achieve maximum profits, while ignoring the feelings, thinking, or emotions of the worker. Thus, power in the mainstream organization is unidirectional instead of having a three direction power orientation that serves all stakeholders. On the other hand, an organization in the new management has to be viewed as an actor in its own right. Therefore, the organization has to be considered as an entity that can make decisions and utilize resources, bringing out a new image and identity in organizations (Whatten & Mackey, 2002). On the other hand, Price, Gioia & Corley (2008) argue that the current organization image and identity has been dented resulting in a major problem. While the conventional organization was created and operated with an aim of obtaining profits alone, the current market and society have more demands and needs from these organizations; the achievement of these needs makes the organization to define its identity adequately, making it hard to control or achieve the required image. This image problem has been caused by unprecedented growth in size and complexity in operations in a competitive market (Price, Gioia, & Corely, 2008). Organizations are thus finding it difficult to consolidate the multiple perceptions of fragmented images they portray in many respects as interpreted by the public. Moreover, there is a growing difference between what the management believes is the projected image of who they are, and the understanding and perception of stakeholders regarding who they are as an organization. This is in accordance to Whatten & Mackey (2002) argument that there are competing conceptions between identities as a shared conception as conceptualized by the stakeholders and the identity defined by the organization. For example, a company involved in a CSR project to improve its image; the manager may have a belief that spending much on such projects would help the company regain lost grounds in defining its image. However, the stakeholders may perceive this as an extra operating cost that eats into the profitability of the company. This is guided by the notion that the more specific a communication with the audience, the more likely is the organization to connect with each segment, making it to gather more loyalty, clusters and resources (Price, Gioia, & Corely, 2008). Therefore the current organization has to use projected images, which are images deliberately constructed and sent to specific audience according to differing purposes. For example, a company will have a different image constructed to the employees in signifying its support and solidarity, to consumers the organization has to have an image of patronage and loyalty, and to the potential investors an image of increased investments. These are all fragmented images that have to be harmonized within the same organization making image and identity a complex process to achieve. The process involves convincing all the stakeholders in market flooded with different, competing as well as contradictory organizational images and identities (Price, Gioia, & Corely, 2008). Moreover, the definition of organization identity and image is perceived to be lacking as it bundles everything together, though organization identity and the image of those within the organization are different. According to Whatten & Mackey (2002), there are competing conceptions in defining organization identity, in the distinction between identities as a shared perception by members within the organization, versus identity as institutionalized claims to members. The new critical theory advocates viewing organization identity as social actors which have authority to engage in social intercourse collectively and having rights and responsibilities, which would make the collectivity to be seen as a single individual (Whatten & Mackey, 2002). Therefore according to the new theory, organization identity conceptions have to account for the unique status of the organization as an individual social actor, away from its members or employees. Thus according to Whatten & Mackey (2002), the individual self and the organization self are reflections as observed by the needs of the modern society to enhance system accountability actions related to the collective actor, or the individual. As described above, the main characteristics of the current organization management is bureaucracy. For example, an administrator or a CEO has all the power to determine whatever has to be done in an organization. In other words, the entire organization is below his command. March (2008) argues that when viewing the public business firm as a political form of coalition, the firm’s executive is like a party leader. His main role and problem is selecting a coalition that would ensure the organization maximizes the difference between demand of the coalition members, and the possible returns realized from the environment of the coalition. Thus the issue is about having a minimum versus winning coalition (Adler, Forbes & Willmott 2007). The business firm is a complex setup with its organizational behaviors resembling a political system; there are numerous case of conflict system and power struggles. The mainstream management approach however, fails in offering a holistic approach in solving such problems. Such an approach as Stone (2001) explains in mainstream management fails to avert both conflict and grievances as the feelings, thinking or even acting of the worker is not adequately represented in such an organization setting. Fischer (1994) explains organizational bureaucracy through Karl Max thoughts to illustrate the exploitation of employees in the mainstream organizations, particularly under the human resource manager, and the organizational administrators. According Marx, bureaucracy involves the principle of bureaucracy to be acknowledged, and authority with a mentality of idolatry of authority. Within bureaucratic systems, the spiritualism of such a system would turn into materialism, which is related to passive obedience, faith in authority, formal fixed behavioral attitudes, fixed principles, and blind obedience (Crozier, 2009). This is further elaborated by Adler (2002). Adler argues that the structural features of our contemporary society has turned organizations into being patriarchy, profit imperative, racial inequality and ecologically irresponsible thus critical theories on mainstream management attach such instruments of exploitation and domination. The theories review and critic the oppressive character of a HR manager in a mainstream organizational setting and business organizational systems (Grey, 2005). To redeem the organizational image in such case, the new organization is considered separate to the individuals; implying such mangers have to be held responsible individually and not collectively as an organization. To solve the above problems, the new organizations have to depart from the mainstream ideas held by many organizations. This approach means emphasizing more on people in terms of workers, instead of materials and other resources for the organization to achieve a competitive advantage (Wright, 2012, Reed, 1999). This involves articulating business ethics and neo-imperialism and rejecting the capitalist notion of production factors (Ibarra- Colado, 2006). In other words, the contemporary management politics and functional approach of exerting too much power on employees and exploiting them is abolished; employees are remunerated effectively to perform to their best levels possible and not through orders and power from such HRM. Such organizations do not embrace any element of domination, oppression, inequality, or gender segregations, which result from the political power struggles in contemporary organizations (Latour, 2005). According to Thompson (1983), power, ideology, capitalism among others, are applied in explaining problems relating to worker resistance. The fact that employee are satisfied and willing to work towards the best performance of an organization indicates that such an organization takes care of the feelings, thinking, and actions of its employees, leading to satisfaction. Mandal (2012) elaborates that limiting the abuse of power from administrators’ political behaviors, in addition to minimizing functional attitudes that result in conflicts in organizations is essential in achieving the required governance in an organization. Ghoshal (2005) notes such conflicts in organizations are propagated by business schools that have actively diverted their students from studying any sense of moral responsibility. Such students are more corrupted by prevailing structures of domination in contemporary organizations. Critical management approach thus to solve such problems emerged in the last decade, as a field of growing interests and relevance in meeting and understanding managerial processes (Vigoda, 2001). Politicking results in conflict and lack of harmony in the work place, where individuals turn against each other, or against the organization itself (Ferris et al, 2007). Politicking may thus emanate from unsatisfied workers with problems in meeting their needs, based and selective treatment of workers, or lack of motivation. The HR through proper employee engagement and reward system may solve such a problem. Ethical and moral standards in management would not result in fraud, which is facilitated by harboring much power in conventional organizations. Such fraud results in whistle blowing, spreading rumors, disseminating information, and leaking information to the media in keeping the individual under pressure, which are all forms of organizational politics, which are counterproductive to the organization’s operations (Latiff et al, 2011). Such shared information in organizational systems affects the entire management levels and their abilities to perform (Hartono et al, 2010) minimizing power in new organizations would thus solve more politicking problems by instilling morals and checking on the powers of the administrator for the benefits of an organization. The problem of bureaucracy is a pertinent issue in many organizations. The top –down –approach organization make managers drunk with powers, thus forgetting those at the bottom of the organization, who are mandated in meeting the customer needs (Cantoni, 1993). However, Bureaucracy does not necessarily indicate the absence of a hierarchy as hierarchies are necessary to ensure ease of information controlling, delineating the management function and increase the likelihood of coordination features within organizations (Whiteford, 2010). Organizations will always take hierarchal forms to solve difficulties in complex team based decision making environments. However, elimination of bureaucracies in the political form in organizations refers to an envisaged future in organizations that presents undistorted communicative practices and involves the ethics of generosity and inclusiveness (Hanscock, 2008). Mainstream management involves the use of power, control and bureaucratic structures that are largely based capitalism ideology. Therefore, the aim of such manager is to increase the profits in an organization while reducing the cost of labor or other recurrent costs. These functions of a manager result in serious political bargaining and dynamics pitting the management against the stakeholders. Politicking results in conflicts, struggles and the manager has to exercise their power by making decisions that have to be implemented by a passive worker. The failure of the mainstream organizations to meet the needs of all stakeholders resulted in critic management systems aimed at solving the major problems associated with the mainstream organizations. The newly advocated organization has to have more emphasis on the worker, ensuring enough space and freedom in the workplace for everyone to make decisions, reward and motive workers effectively, a d abolish organizational politicking as much as possible by allowing effective communication routes by all stakeholders. The new organization is thus a departure from the mainstream management and solves major problems associated with the latter. [word count 2392] References List Adler, P. 2002. Critical in the name of whom and what? Organization, 9(3), 387-395. Adler, P. S., Forbes, L.C., & Willmott, H. 2007. Critical Management Studies. London : Taylor & Francis Cantoni , C. J., 1993. Eliminating Bureaucracy-Roots and All. Management Review, 82(12), 30 Contu A. & Willmott H., 2003. Re-Embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learning Theory. Organizations Crozier, M. 2009. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, London: Transaction Publishers. Devanna, M.A., Fombrun, C., & Tichy, N., 1981. Management : A Strategic Perspective. AMACOM. http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/28738722/1303637375/name/reading%2Bon%2Bhrp%2B%2526a.pdf [Accessed 5th Nov. 2012] Ferris G.R., et al. 2007. Strategic Bullying as a Supplementary, Balanced Perspective on Destructive Leadership, The Leadership Quarterly. 18(3): 195-206 Fischer, F., 1994. Critical Studies in Organizational and Bureaucracy: Revised and Expanded. PH: Temple University Press Ghoshal, S., 2005. Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(1), 75-91. Grey, C., 2005. Critical Management Studies: Towards a More Mature Politics. International Critical Management Studies Conference. Cambridge, 4. Habermas, J., 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hartono, E., Li X., Na, K.S. & Simpsonic, J., 2010. The Role of the Quality Shared Information in the InterOrganizational Systems use, International Journal of Informational Management, 30; 399-407. Hasncock, P., 2008. Critical management Studies: An Introduction, Critical Sociology 34(1), 9-14. Heydebrand, W., 2007. “Globalization and the Rise of Procedural Informalism in Europe and America” V. Gessner, D. Nelken (Eds.), European ways of Law, Hart Publication, Oxford pp. 93–140 Heydebrand, W., 2009. Accounting for Great Expectations: Lessons from New Media Surge for Critical Management Theory. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), 418-444. Ibarra- Colado, E., 2006. Organizational Studies Epistemic Coloniolity in Latin America: Thinking Otherness from the Margins. Organizations, 13(4), 463-488. Koonts H., & Weihrich H., (1990). Essentials of Management 5th Ed. McGraw Hill. Latif, A., Abideen Z.U, & Nazar S.M., 2011. Individual Political Behavior in Organizational Relationships . Journal of Politics and Law, 4(1) Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lukes S., 2005. Power: a Radical View (2nd ed.)Palgrave Macmillan, New York Mandal, S.K., Ethics in Business & Corp Governance. New Delhi: McGraw Hill Education. March, J, 2008. The Business Firm as a Political Coalition http://glori.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/airspace/NUSarchive/Organizations/Org00-1/marchR.html [Accessed 5th Nov. 2012] Price, K.P. , Gioia, D.A. & Corley, K.G. (2008): Reconciling Scattered Images. Managing Disparate Organizational Expressions and Impressions, Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(3): 173-185. Reed, D., 1999. Stakeholder Management Theory: A Critical Theory Perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9(3), 453-483. Stone, K., 2001. The new psychological contract: implications of the changing workplace for labor and employment law. UCLA Law Review, 48 pp. 519–661 Thompson, P. 1983. The Nature of Work, London: McMillan Vogoda, E., 2002. Stress related Aftermaths to Workplace Politics: The relationships Among Politics, Job Distress, and Aggressive behavior in Organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior. 23(5):571-591. Whiteford, A., B., 2010. The Hierarchical Consequences of Reinvention: Evidence from the American Bureaucracy. Journal of Management History, 16(1), 59-74. Wright, C., 2012. 21st Century Human Resource management Strategic Planning and Legal Issues. Sage Publications http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/45673_1.pdf [Accessed 5th Nov. 2012] Whetten D.A., & Mackey, A., 2002. A Social Actor Conception of Organizational Identity and its Implications for Study of Organizational Reputation. Business & Society, 41(4), 393-414 Read More