Changing World of Work and Choice and Opportunity Structures Affecting Careers - Essay Example

?WORK, SOCIETY & ORGANIZATIONS Theme: the changing world of work and choice and opportunity structures affecting careers Part While it may be true that there were no persons called “managers” 125 years ago, there were, however, people who already performed the job of managers. Management was defined by Professor Claude George (The History of Management Thought, 1968) as the creation of “an environment conducive to the performance of acts by other individuals in order to accomplish personal as well as corporate goals” (Trent, 1973, p. 141). Writers point to medieval guild masters or even earlier nomadic tribal leaders as ancient prototypical managers, but from George’s definition one might be tempted to say that mothers comprised the first managers in human history. A “manager” is difficult to categorically define. George’s definition centers on managers as motivators, working to achieve goals through people. Managers are also organizers: Daniel A. Wren called management “the activity which performs certain functions in order to obtain the effective acquisition, allocation, and utilization of human efforts and physical resources in order to establish some goal” (Trent, 1973, p. 141). Militarism and Mechanization was formalized by Frederick the Great in the 17th century. He revolutionized warfare, and he is generally acknowledged as an early efficiency expert. He was credited with redirecting the structures and processes of waging war, and creating the elements of the machine organization as it applies to the military establishment. Elements of his management style included the institutionalization of authority by creating a system of ranks, establishing identity by uniforms, the standardization of regulations, task specialization among the troops, and the use of command language to reduce miscommunication and specialized training (MacDonogh, 2001). This management style is of course essentially still used to some extent in military and police organizations, although it is much tempered by contemporary HR practices in its treatment of people. Scientific Management Frederick Winslow Taylor, an engineer and self-styled consultant, conceptualized the link between corporate profitability, industrial productivity, and cost-efficiency. Under scientific management, productivity is increased and unit cost is reduced when workers become more task efficient. In turn, workers become more efficient if they are rewarded for higher volume productivity, and punished for low volume productivity. This management theory is also known as Taylorism. The principle of scientific management espouses the elimination of rule-of-thumb methods, and to instead use measurement techniques to determine the optimum methods that optimizes the use of time, effort, and resources. Jobs are broken down into sequential tasks, and each task is engineered for greater efficiency. Then the workers are trained in the new tasks using scientific methods. There is division of labor and responsibility among managers and workers, where management sets the goals and policies, and workers execute the tasks. Finally, discipline is maintained to coordinate task execution (Taylor, 2008). The world’s largest restaurant chain is an avowed follower of Taylorism. McDonald’s employs the scientific method in its corporate operations, where all tasks are worked out and standardized, and all employees worldwide are rigorously trained in this system. Tasks are broken down and numbered, so that the crews related to their customers according to a prepared script, and those who man the kitchen abide by a numbered set of procedures. Even the cooking machinery are specially designed to operate at pre-determined time settings. The result is a rigid quality level that ensures McDonald’s products are prepared and serve in exactly the same way the world over. Formal bureaucracy was conceived by Max Weber in the early 1900s. This was done in reaction to the prevailing management style then, where organisations were run according to the whims and caprices of the authoritarian industrialists in a highly politicized system. The old system was characterized by a rigid class structure where the relationship between management and workers was dictated by class privilege and social convention. Max Weber’s bureaucratic management was based on professionalisation of the service. The bureaucracy was conceived to be an organization model which was fair, impartial, and rational. It abided by the scalar principle, where the hierarchical organizational structure created a systematic authority structure and orderly communication channel. The division of labor was based on the person’s scope of authority within the organisational structure, and a standardized system of rules and regulations governed the rights and duties of the employees, the promotion and selection of personnel, and the rewards and sanctions system. In modern day parlance, “bureaucracy” has an outdated connotation and is often associated with “red tape” or unnecessary rigidity in formalities and the observance of standard operating procedures. However, we take these formalities and procedures for granted in this day and age of automation and computerization. In the context of the feudalistic style of the late 19th century when management was the aristocracy and the working class was looked down upon as servants, the concept of a professional organization where employees’ job descriptions were formalized and workers were accorded dignity at work, the bureaucratic approach must have been deemed a revolutionary concept that upheld professionalism over personalism. For understandable reasons, many government agencies and instrumentalities maintain the bureaucratic approach in management. This is because public administration, because it makes use of public finances, has highly defined and at time legislated processes, which limit management options and require strict compliance with many measures. The human relations movement took off from the Hawthorne studies conducted at Western Electric in Chicago in the early thirties. It examined the effect of human behaviour and psychology on their productivity in the work place. The researchers discovered two fundamental principles that defined the human relations movement: these were the Hawthorne effect, and the workings of the internal organization. The Hawthorne effect is a form of reaction where people who were being observed tended to perform better and be more productive than they ordinarily were when they were not being given the extra attention. It tended to suggest that people were more motivated to work when they were given due recognition for their work. On the other hand, the informal organization is the set of relationships underlying the formal bureaucracy, that influenced and even controlled work flow and productivity, (Good, 2005). Human relations is a breakthrough in management theory, having emerged at about the time when interest in psychology and psychoanalysis was gaining ground in the sciences. It led to the view that the workers constitute a vital resource in the organization, and in fact is its most important component. The firm’s employees became its strongest motive force, and the source of its competitive advantage. This is the standard wisdom in many firms today, particularly those that deal with services such as call centers. McGreggor’s Theory X and Theory Y is one of the more popular management theories that had a profound effect on modern managers. Theory X rests on the assumptions that: (1) people inherently dislike work and will avoid it when possible; (2) because they dislike work, employees must be closely monitored at their jobs, with the threat of punishment if their work suffers; (3) workers will try to avoid responsibility, and will not work unless formally directed by higher ups; and (4) employees will look for job security and, having this, have little ambition to advance themselves. On the other hand, Theory Y assumes that: (1) people have a natural inclination to work, and find pride and satisfaction in a job well done; (2) workers have the initiative and self direction to do good work as long as they feel committed to the organization; (3) on the average, people seek responsibility and self-advancement at their work; and (4) employees value creativity and constantly seek different channels through which they may exercise it. This theory has captured the imagination of many management professionals, such that one will always find managers who describe themselves as either a Theory X or Theory Y type manager. While some observers may think one better than the other, many feel that the type of business will usually dictate which approach would be more appropriate. An manufacturing concern with regimented schedules and structured processes will benefit more from a Theory X approach, while an organization whose products have a high research or creative component will benefit from a Theory Y approach. One organization that embraces and celebrates the Theory Y management style is the highly successful Pixar Animation Studios, which had practically revolutionized the way animated movies are made today. Pixar’s management style is freewheeling and liberal, in the course of which a corporate culture has developed that encourages bold creativity and innovation. Pixar’s management has an informal approach to work with a “hands-off” style, allowing their employees’ creative vent to lead them to new ideas and fresh approaches. It abides by three general principles: (1) Freedom to communicate with anyone; (2) Safety to offer one’s ideas; and (3) Keeping close to innovations in the academe. In this setting, people left to themselves work harder and do more, are more positively motivated, than if someone constantly looked over their shoulder. The management philosophies briefly examined here are but a few of the many variations of management and organization theory, and by no means are exhaustive. The brief survey done here, however, is sufficient to show their influences in contemporary industry. Part 2 Social stratification implies the existence of social classes or caste system whereby certain groups of people, by birthright, ethnicity, economic endowment, or other such criterion is deemed more eligible for certain rewards or rights bestowed by society and tradition. In a free and democratic society, however, its incumbents are deemed equal, and thus are rewarded equally (or at least by a common standard commonly applied). By definition, therefore, there is no social stratification (Plotnicov & Tuden, 1970). However, stratification in modern parlance does not simply mean social or economic classes. Social stratification is viewed by sociologists as a universal human phenomenon. Social stratification, therefore, refers to the “differential evaluation and the differential rewarding of functional roles.” (Plotnicov & Tuden, 1970, p. 150). Social stratification is sometimes confused with the idea of social differentiation. The latter refers to the division of labor that exists in all societies (Dressler & Willis, 1976). The distinction is that division of labor is a purely horizontal extension in social space, while social stratification refers to the vertical extension. The greater the vertical extension in social space of those differences of evaluation and rewards, the greater the degree of social stratification (Plotnicov & Tuden, 1970, p. 150). The necessary existence of social stratification, even in modern society as it is in primitive tribes, creates a need to examine the effect of inequality on the various aspects of contemporary living. One classic topic is the consequences of stratification on a person’s subsequent livelihood – his orientation, attitudes and preferences towards work, his job choices and performance in the workplace. A person’s social station has a more or less persistent set of non-work and work structures that influence his approach towards work. Watson (2008, p. 231) thinks of these factors and influences according to the following summarized table: Factors influencing the individual’s approach to work, Watson (2008. p. 231) Watson’s model depicts non-work and work structures as major influences on an individual’s view of work. Objective resources (cash, skills, knowledge, physique) as well as subjective perspectives (motives, expectations, interests and aspirations) in the scope of the individual’s own circumstances also define his affinity to work. It is therefore expected that an individual low on cash resources but endowed with specialized skills would have a greater compulsion to work and a greater chance to succeed at finding productive employment. On the other hand, one with sufficient personal resources would have less impetus to find a job or, finding one, retain it for a longer period of time. What interests sociologists, however, are the list of non-work structural factors that define the individual’s profile and relates aspects of this profile to his affinity for work. These factors have their implications for the individual in the social milieu he moves about in; without society, there is little consequence or significance attributed to his race, gender, or educational attainment. In the social context, however, such factors can have deep and lasting influence in one’s selection and retention of work. Kalmijn & Kraaykamp (2007) conducted a study on social stratification and attitudes in the European setting. The study sought to determine whether inequalities in class and education hold greater significance in less developed societies, and conversely have less importance and consequence in developed societies. The study determined by empirical approach that no evidence exists that the effects of class on attitudes are lower when countries are more modern, and vice versa, implying that whether or not society is enjoying some measure of development and affluence, attitudes towards work (and non-work for that matter) would tend to be the same. The conclusion tends to support Plotnicov & Tuden (1970, p. 150) in their assertion that stratification and its influence on individuals is a universal human phenomenon. An earlier study (conducted in 1985) examined job involvement as differentiated by age groups. Lorence and Mortimer (1985) observed that the age differences among the groups tended to represent the different stages in the respondents’ careers, or in the case of the advanced in age, of his past experiences. The study found that job involvement is relatively volatile for the young age group, representing their first foray into work and the early stages of their career. As the workers grows older, however, job involvement stabilizes and attitudes towards work become more predictable, even as the work environment becomes more stable. This appears to confirm the so-called “aging stability hypothesis” as workers grow older. The study further found that the subjective element of work autonomy exerts significant influence of jobs involvement in all age groups. Among the groups, it was found that work autonomy exerts the strongest influence among the youngest group of respondents. This appears to suggest that there appears to be “a highly formative stage in young adulthood” beyond which the person tends to become more resistant in the face of environmental pressures to change (Lorence & Mortimer, 1985). Spenner (1988) conducted a review of literature on the relationships among stratification, work and personality. Longitudinal studies showed that there is an extensive pattern of small to modest effects between the structural imperatives of jobs and the dimensions of the worker’s personality, with each job component impacting on one or more dimensions of personality. Conversely, facets of personality likewise influence one or more job conditions, or more precisely, the worker’s perception of his job conditions. Another study looked into stratification and meritocracy in the U.S., investigating the nature of class and occupational recruitment patterns. Griffin and Kalleberg (1981) examined six class positions, i.e. employers, managers, technocrats, supervisors, semi-autonomous employees, and proletarian workers, and investigate the manner by which these workers were allocated to their positions. The study arrived at the finding that generally, the employees mentioned were not generally allocated to their positions on the basis of merit, or at least the ‘meritocratic’ criteria specified for the study. The study tended to suggest that, contrary to common perception, employee selection and appointment may not abide by the generally expected criteria of education, technical skills, or capability. This has implications on the expectations of new entrants into the workforce, that the possession of those attributes deemed advantageous to find better jobs are not necessarily guarantees that such a job, where vacant, will be eventually occupied by the applicant with the best qualifications. Finally, Baron and Pfeffer (1994) conducted an investigation of the social psychology of organizations and inequality. The study forwarded the findings that basic social psychological processes which include social comparison, categorization, and interpersonal attraction and affiliation, can play a strong role in the determination of division of labor in organizations, the assignment of wages to job positions, and the matching of individuals with their work roles. Because of the strong influence played by the subjective factors in the selection and assignment of roles to employees, many organizations externalize these activities (i.e., outsource or subcontract) in order to pursue greater flexibility in their work force than there otherwise would have been had the process been handled internally. From the foregoing studies, it is conclusive that the various non-work structural factors conditioned by stratification do affect the individual’s approach to work as much as the work sphere structural factors. Conversely, the individual’s work attitude and performance likewise affect his perception of these non-work and work sphere structural factors. This looped feedback and reaction process eventually creates a greater stability among the various factors as the worker matures in his career. Part 3 The effort I have put in this particular piece of work has enabled me to obtain a comprehensive view of the various tenets studied in the course, allowing me to conceptualize the bigger picture of the complex relationships of work, organization, and society. A revisit of the theories of management and the search for parallels between these theories and their manifestations in real world companies has helped me internalize the fundamental differences of these schools of thought. I believe that at some future time, in my own career, the typologies in which I had gained insight will allow me to understand better management styles and the organizational attributes for which they shall be better suited. In the second part, in the course of conducting a search of academic studies on the non-work and work environment structures, I have become enlightened on the intricate relationships among psychological, organizational, and social influences that come into play in determining workers’ attitudes towards their work. Again, at some point in time when I shall have advanced to a position of responsibility in my career, the awareness that this project has ingrained in me shall be quite useful in my understanding of complex issues and the use of this understanding in arriving at better management decisions. I am particularly appreciative of this project, because of its integration of theory and real world view that has enhanced the impact of the lesson. It has greatly enhanced my confidence to someday tackle the job of manager. References Baron, J N & Pfeffer, J. 1994 “The Social Psychology of Organizations and Inequality” Social Psychology Quarterly, Sep 1, 1994, Vol. 57, Issue 3 Dressler, D & Willis, W M 1976 Sociology: The Study of Human Interaction. Da Capo Press, New York, NY Good, P I 2005 Introduction to statistics through resampling methods and Microsoft Office Excel. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication, Hoboken, New Jersey Griffin, L J & Kalleberg, A L. “Stratification and Meritocracy in the United States: Class and Occupational Recruitment Patterns” The British Journal of Sociology, Mar 1, 1981, Vol. 32, Issue 1 Lorence, J & Jeylan T. Mortimer, J T 1985 “Job Involvement Through the Life Course: A Panel Study of Three Age Groups” American Sociological Review, Oct 1, 1985, Vol. 50, Issue 5 MacDonogh, G 2001 Frederick the Great: A Life in Deed and Letters. The Orion Publishing Group Ltd. Plotnikov, L & Tuden, A 1970 Essays in Comparative Social Stratification. University of Pittsburg Press. Spenner, K I 1988 “Social Stratification, Work, and Personality” Annual Review of Sociology, 1988, Vol. 14 Taylor, F W 2008 The Principles of Scientific Management. Digireads.com Publishing, Stilwell, KS Trent, R H 1972 “Management History: Is There Madness in its Method?” Academy of Management Proceedings (00650668), 1972, p140-144 Walonick, D S 1993 Organizational Theory and Behavior. Accessed 8 March 2011 from http://www.survey-software-solutions.com/walonick/organizational-theory.htm Read More