Organizational Theory Perspectives - Coursework Example

How do the three perspectives (Modern, Symbolic-Interpretive, and Post-modern) contribute to different ways to think about organisations? Introduction Organizational theory has been evolving in different directions with characteristic diversity in theoretical and conceptual frameworks. Business organizations function on the known principle of continuity or survival. In other words business organizations are known for their strategic functional dimension of surviving even in the face of stiff competition. Thus the three perspectives – Modern, Symbolic interpretive and Post-modern – have been examined against this backdrop to delineate a set of functional attributes to the organizational environment, both strategic and competitive. Modern perspectives on organizational theory began through the 1950’s, 1960’s to the end of 1970’s. However it’s the latter period and writers associated with that period that had a real impact on the subsequent developments of the modern perspectives on organizational theory. Emery and Trist (1960) and Woodward (1965) for example stand out in their efforts to develop a theoretical and conceptual framework for analysis. This period was followed by what’s known as the Symbolic-interpretive perspective in organizational theory. Starting from the pioneering work of Schutz (1932) it culminated in the path-breaking work of Clifford and Marcus (1986) on evolutionary anthropology. However, many other writers contributed to this evolutionary process though. Finally the Post-modern perspective on organizational theory began to be developed by such writers as Bell (1973) and the tradition continued to evolve with various writers and researchers contributing to its many faceted perspectives till Baudrillard (1988) wrote his masterpiece on Post-modernism with articulate emphasis on the organization as a post-modern phenomenon that required a more analytical approach than was hitherto practiced. Analysis Modern perspective about the business organization is basically determined by objective reality, i.e. there is an objective external environment which exists beyond the reach of humans’ knowledge and therefore the organization exists as a separate entity form this objective external environment. However there is an element of positivism in human’s ability to learn the real nature of this external environment by developing concepts that enable them to progress by accumulating intelligence. When this is applied to the modern business organization and its environment it’s imperative in the first instance for it to operate in its environment with a set of rules or norms, standards and procedures. Its organizational behavior is determined by a system of internal organizational practices and above all a well-defined decision making process. In other words the Modern perspective on the business organization’s behavior presumes that it has set upon the task of doing business with an active attitude towards behavioral outcomes. Modern perspective has been known for its techniques, processes and procedural norms that are put in place by the management to achieve its goals. In other words managers under the Modern perspective adopt control procedures that ensure the progressive development of rational organizational structures to facilitate control over and regulation of the many functions of the organization. A critical analysis of these aspects of the Modern perspective will show that there is a huge amount of literature on the subject to build up a significantly vast reservoir of intelligence on the organization’s evolution from what it was in the 1950’s to the current more advanced entity. This transformation captures the very essence of this perspective or theory with associated concepts being more convincingly explained. On the other hand Symbolic Interpretive perspective of organizational theory assumes a subjective approach, i.e. humans cannot know with certainty whether there is an objective external environment which has some influences on the organization’s behavior (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006). In other words according to Symbolic Interpretive perspective humans’ knowledge of the objective external environment is subjective and does not allow a more concrete knowledge about it except that humans assume that there is an environment in existence and that is agreed upon by all. According to this perspective there is just a relative perception on the part of the knower and therefore all knowledge is a relative phenomenon which can be known or experienced by the persons involved in that experience directly. Truth is a socially determined proposition through a variety of interpretations of those objectives of intelligence or knowledge. In other words all objectives of knowledge known to the knower can only be interpreted as such and therefore they are accordingly built up. As a matter of fact all such knowledge is subject to change through the process of time. When these theoretical perspectives of Symbolic Interpretive perspective are applied to the modern business organization, there is an invariably constructed systematic process of evolution of the organization through multiple of phases of construction and reconstruction. In other words human agents adopt a symbolic series of societal interactions within the organizational environment to promote desirable organizational outcomes. This is just a process of understanding others and in turn being understood. This perspective seeks to identify both symbolic and interpretive processes and procedures in the organizational context to achieve a degree of coherence in the outcomes related to the nature and shape of human experience. This is indeed one of the remarkable approaches to organizational theory though its implications have been interpreted as essentially cultural anthropology-centric. Finally Post-modern perspective on organizational theory has acquired such a greater dimension in the modern context of the business organization. Its theoretical and conceptual paradigms have been applied in the communication sphere as essentially important and relevant. For example according to Post-modern perspective every word spoken or written constitutes a primary and immediate expression of human emotion and is representative of a fundamental psychological phenomenon. Thus what is spoken or written has an existence. However there is no any validity for this argument beyond this. Post-modern perspective on the organizational theory also holds that existing knowledge doesn’t adequately represent truth since meanings of words keep on changing continuously (Hatch, 1997). In other words there are no factual examples to talk about. Reality is a relative concept and isn’t absolute. Therefore what’s interpreted has to be taken by the listener as a representation of knowledge according to the personal viewpoint of the speaker. When this perspective is applied to the modern business organization it’s all about power games that the organization depends on. Irrational behavioral patterns, oppressive conduct towards the weak on the part of the powerful members of the organization, misleading communication processes and even the distortion of the truth, if any, are the order of the day within the organization. In other words organizations are ironically the products of intentional language distortion and misleading behavior of the powerful. Accoridng to Post-modern perspective it’s possible to edit this organizational plaque to achieve some progress in its day-to-day functional environment so that there will be no bad impact coming from human insensitivities and ignominious behavior. Post-modern perspective of the business organization seeks to encourage a total deconstruction of the written and spoken syntax in the organization. In other words managers’ personal likes and dislikes that get into the communication flow and hurt the subordinates would be removed to accommodate a more caring and sharing language of communication (Hancock and Tyler, 2001). Managers’ current ideological perspectives would be replaced with more progressive and liberal ones. Those employees who have been pushed into a corner due to this insensitive behavior of superiors could be given an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the organization’s success. In other words the organization becomes a place for meaningful organizing of production and distribution. Modern perspective of the organizational theory is basically determined by the conceptual theoretical underpinnings based on the sensory experience of the individual viewer of the organization’s operations both from within and without. The organization is peopled by men and women as directors, managers, employees and a host of external stakeholders. Thus the behavioral tendencies of individuals within the organization – internal stakeholders – have such a far reaching impact on its outcomes. This is necessarily the beginning of a more advanced theoretical and conceptual framework of analysis developed subsequently to understand better the modern organizational structures. However its overall success has been severely limited by its inability to come to terms with the real world which is less likely to be influenced by an uncertain degree of objectivism. Symbolic Interpretive perspective of the organizational theory offers a still more incisive vision on the modern business organization by giving an empirical picture of it. The supporters of this approach seek to place the organization in a context governed by subjective elements and therefore there is much less of a chance to conceptualize its theoretical constructs in a more logical environment of functional behavior. Business organizations don’t interpret their external environment in terms of subjective postulates. Thus this subjectivism renders the understanding of the organization’s external environment all the more difficult. Post-modern perspective of the organizational theory has come out with some success here due to its dependence on the written and spoken word. But nevertheless it has been preoccupied with power games played by scheming managers. This has inevitably run into rough weather. There is very little effort by Post-modernists to seek truth. They seek to propagate an ideological stance taken by autocratic managers and thus have little acceptance in the modern organizational theory (Boje, Gephart and Thatchenkery, 1996). Conclusion The current thinking on the subject of organizational theory has been focused on some of the aberrant but essentially significant perspectives. Thus Modern, Modern Interpretive and Post-modern perspectives on organizational theory have come to play a somewhat important role in the current literature on the subject. Modern perspective has been associated with objective reality in the external environment of the organization, while Modern Interpretive perspective has been associated with subjectivism. Next Post-modern perspective is associated with the rejection of truth seeking behavior. All in all these three perspectives have received some attention from researchers and analysts due the fact that they have been developed in conformance with some important aspects of the organization. Despite this theoretical conceptual model building effort of each theorist there has been a vast gap between the organizational reality and the theory. Thus learning outcomes have been of little relevance in the modern organizational context. REFERENCES 1. Baudrillard, J. (1988). The ecstasy of communication. New York: Semiotext. 2. Bell, B. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: a venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic Books. 3. Boje, D. M., Gephart, R. P. & Thatchenkery, T. J. (1996). Postmodern management and organization theory. London: Sage Publications. 4. Clifford, J. & G.E. Marcus. (eds) 1986. Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 5. Emery, F. E. & Trist, E. L. (1960). Social- Technical Systems.In Churchman & Verhulst (Editors). Management Science Models and Techniques.Vol 2. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 6. Hatch, M. J. & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives (2nd ed). Oxford University Press, New York. 7. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. 8. Hancock, P. & Tyler, M. J. (2001). Work, Postmodernism and Organization: A Critical Introduction (Organization, Theory and Society series). Sage Publications Ltd: London. 9. Schutz, A. (1932). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press 10. Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organization: theory and practice.New York: Oxford University Press. Read More