The role of intimacy at work: Interactions and relationships in the NHS - Essay Example

The role of intimacy at work: Interactions and relationships in the NHS QUESTIONS a) According to modernist paradigm, what kind of personal relationships should exist between organisational participants? Draw upon the case for illustration. Modernist paradigm is characterized by the existence of a complex network of relationships in the workplace. More specifically, in accordance with the most common practices, modernist paradigm has been related with the extensive communication and the simultaneous existence of emotions of friendship among the employees. In this context, it is noticed by Cleveland et al. (2000, 81) that “there are many kinds of interpersonal attractions and friendships that may or may not lead to a romantic relationship at work; first, in terms of benefits, friendships among employees can provide social support, which is an important buffer from stress and stress-related illness; furthermore, friendship such as the ones discussed previously can develop into valuable mentoring relationships (the reverse can occur as well, with formal mentoring relationships developing into friendships)”. In accordance with the above views, friendship is considered to be a necessary element of the employees’ relationship in the workplace. From a particular point of view the existence of friendship in the workplace could possibly lead to the increase of the employees’ productivity either in the short or the long term. In the case under examination, the emotions in workplace should be characterized as complex and difficult to be interpreted. It seems however from the events taking place that the modernist theory could be proved to be useful for the interpretation of the employees’ relations in both hospitals. However, in the first hospital the bureaucratic paradigm would be also an appropriate theoretical basis for the explanation of the employees’ relations. The main aspects of modernist paradigm can be highlighted mainly in the case of the second hospital where as it is stated ‘romance is in everyday part of working life’. However, under these circumstances, the aspects of the modernist paradigm presented are not so positive regarding its influence on the organizational performance. More specifically, in the particular case it is noticed that “it is generally expected that people will regulate their involvements themselves, and regulate is the key word; one or two members were identified as not being able to undertake this, and were castigated for their poor handling of the situations that resulted”. In other words, the existence of ‘romantism’ in the workplace should be considered as a rather negative fact for the whole organization. Towards this direction, it has been supported by Cleveland et al. (2000, 81) that “there is also some evidence that such relationships can bolster work attitudes and performances, especially those of the participants while formal or informal relationships can be positive for the organization by creating a more open and positive organizational culture with managers and employees who are helpful and supportive”. In other words, it has been proved that the existence of romance in the workplace is not an appropriate condition for any organization. Furthermore, as it has been proved through a series of negative events that have took place in the particular organization, the existence of romance can be related with a serious damage to the organization, referring to its performance either in the short or the long term. With a reference to the romance, Spurlock (2005, 289) found that “an important shift in the understanding and uses of romance appears in the late 18th and early 19th century; as property and alliance became less important motives for marriage, desire and choice came to predominate; romance became the gatekeeper of marriage”. If we adapt these findings to an organizational environment we will come to the conclusion that romance is totally inappropriate for the organizational environment. The organizational participants under this case are more likely to be concentrated on their personal relations rather on work. In other works, modernist paradigm in the workplace should be limited on the friendship to the point that human emotions are necessary for the proactive performance of any employee no matter the type of the specific organization. (b) How might the bureaucratic model impact, as an instance of the modernist paradigm, on (i) individuals and (ij) the achievement of organisational goals? Draw upon the case for illustration. The bureaucratic model is totally different from the modernist one. In fact the research made in the relevant field by Hodson (2001, 27) showed that “only bureaucratic forms of organization can engage in the long-term planning and integration necessary for a modern economy and society; the significance of bureaucracy, however, is not just its technical efficiency relative to traditional and coercive forms of organizing work but it also lies in its ability to secure the consent of participants by providing a new basis for legitimate power”. Under these terms the application of bureaucratic rules within a particular organization can ensure the existence of a specific level of organizational performance (in terms of the employees’ performance which is expected to be increased). In the case of Department A, the employees’ relations are characterized by a high level of professionalism. While in Department B the existence of emotions is a necessary element of the organizational environment, in Hospital A, the relevant research revealed that “Romance was certainly absent from the agenda while any particularly inappropriate behaviour, for example a staff-outpatients liaison, would be considered as inappropriate”. The lack of emotions was extended in all departments. For this reason it was found that “any such arrangements – romance - would be highly incongruous; most respondents found it extremely hard to picture any kind of involvements (between members of staff or between staff and outpatients) taking place in the department, it simply seemed alien to them, . . . a foreign idea” . In accordance with the above findings, bureaucratic paradigm can have a strong influence on the behaviour of employees in the workplace. More specifically it seems that in firms where this system is applied the existence of emotions in the workplace is forbidden. Regarding the romance, this strategy should be considered as justified. However, regarding the friendship this policy has to be criticized as totally unacceptable. Despite its negative aspects, bureaucracy has the power to be imposed on the organizational environment even if there is no such a primary strategy followed by the central management. Towards this direction, the study of Hodson showed that “the legal–rational underpinnings of bureaucracies (formal rules and codes laying out the responsibilities and rights for the different members of the organization) have the ability to secure consent by establishing legitimacy based on the rational allocation of power and rewards” (Hodson, 2001, 27). In accordance with the above study, bureaucracy can have both positive and negative effects to individuals and organizations. In its positive aspect, bureaucracy can help individuals to increase their performance and their rewards. The company also can be benefited from the application of bureaucracy either in the short or the long term mainly through the increase of its profitability (as a result of the relevant increase of the employees’ productivity). However, from a negative aspect, bureaucracy can destroy the human relationship within an organization leading to the opposite result, i.e. the decrease of the firm’s performance. In the last case both individual and firm can suffer adamage due to the application of bureaucracy within the organization. Generally the conditions of Department A can be characterized as both positive and negative. In accordance with the research made in the relevant department “hierarchy is an important element in directorate culture; a female consultant observed that, even though appointments of women to medical positions were on the increase, those in posts had made little real impact because they were not in positions of power; however a secretary also made the point that in a company, apart from MD.s, management and the rest of the staff are more or less equal, they all treat each other the same, but consultants and non-medical staff are just completely (unequal)’. In other words, bureaucracy can refer not only to a positive aspect within a particular organization. 2. (a) The Symbolic-interpretative and Postmodern paradigms suggest a different mode of interaction within the workplace. How does it differ from that described above? What is the rationale behind these recommendations? The two above paradigms differ from the paradigms mentioned above mainly to the fact that can be used effectively in the context of the human relations. However, their application in the organizational environment should be strongly criticized. The first of these paradigms, the symbolic-interpretive represents the organization as a place where all participants and events can be used in order to produce specific ‘allegories’ regarding the most appropriate strategy as it can be observed in the specific organization. Participants and events are going to be represented (or represent) specific meanings and symbols in order to come to an appropriate conclusion regarding the firm’s needs, its strengths and its weaknesses. On the other hand, the postmodern paradigm could be partially related with the modernist paradigm referring to the existence of emotions in all human activities (including work). The particular paradigm can be also explicated using the ideas of traditional sociologists, like Weber in the context that such an interpretation would help towards the easier adaptation of the theory in a particular organizational environment. (b) Would you say that Department B demonstrates the characteristics of the new workplace, as envisaged by some theories critical of the classical/bureaucratic model? Support your answer. Actually, Department B (or Hospital B as mentioned above) faces many problems as a result of the existence of emotions and particularly of romance throughout the workplace. More specifically, the research in the particular department showed that in this department “occasions when the police arguably should have been alerted to events, but were not called due to an unwillingness to, as one put it, wash the dirty linen in public; one incident in fact constituted a serious assault and yet was hushed up”. In fact many similar events have been observed in the particular department as a result of the existence of romance. The modernist paradigm in this case had a negative result. Under the above terms, Department B presents many negative characteristics and could not be regarded as responding to the appropriate type of modern workplace. On the other hand, it is noticed that in the particular department “disagreements which do occur are typically smoothed over at directorate social events which are frequent (any opportunity for a celebration there is a party here); there is also a great deal of out-of-work socialising, which does not necessarily observe hierarchy - a secretary said that she would invite a professor to her house should she give a dinner party and a technician described her and her husbands friendship with another senior consultant who lives near to them”. In other words, it seems that the particular department has an advantage comparing the first Department where the existence of bureaucracy prohibits the resolution of the problems between employees. Or at least it creates obstacles to the completion of the relevant procedure. 3. Suggest why the two departments differ in culture. If you were given the task of managing cultural change as suggested by theories associated with all 3 paradigms, how might you go about it? Why might current pressures on the NHS necessitate such a change? The two departures differ in their culture mainly because of the relevant managerial plans applied in them. In this context, Langford (1999, 116) referred to the study of Jessica Benjamin who ‘distinguishes between two possible psychoanalytic approaches to relationships: the intrapsychic and the intersubjective; the intrapsychic approach, developed by Freud, is the one which generally prevails; the focus is on uncovering the contents of the unconscious—the individual’s inner world of symbol, fantasy, anxiety and defence”. In other words, the interpretation of the behaviour of employees within the workplace cannot be completed easily because of the existence of many issues and events taking place in both departments. However, the strategies followed by their managers have to be considered as crucial. More specifically, Rowden (1999, 22) supported that “the traditional HR functions of staffing, recruiting, compensation and benefits are losing ground to a new generation of value-added core HR functions that include career planning, executive development, training, succession planning and organization development”. In other words, the development of relationships between the employees in the workplace is formulated in accordance with the existed HR policies as designed and applied by the responsible managers. However, it should be notice that the risk of development of inappropriate emotions in the workplace cannot prohibit the HR managers to apply the appropriate strategy as this can be derived from the observation of the enterprise for a specific period of time. All issues that should normally been considered by the HR manager should be taken into consideration in the specific case. Regarding this problem, Mathews (1998, 175) noticed that the existence of diversity is necessary for the positive performance of any organization; however it is preferable that “before diversity strategies are implemented, the organizations cultural environment, management and evaluation systems should be examined to ascertain if existing personnel/human resources processes will support or hinder diversity in the organization; then, appropriate strategies can be designed to develop and manage diversity based on these findings”. In the particular case, the design and the application of any strategy should be based on the particular characteristic of both departments but also on their role in the society. Because of the ‘type’ of the specific organizations as ‘providers’ of healthcare services it could be considered as absolutely impossible to exclude emotions from the workplace as such a strategy would have severe consequences also to the patients. In this context, the bureaucratic paradigm as applied in the Department A would be rejected. On the other hand, the performance of this department proves that bureaucracy should be partially applied in a particular organization because it is related with high profits. At least this is the result derived from the study of the organizations presented in the particular organization. For this reason, it is considered that the appropriate strategy should combine part of both the above strategies (i.e. both the modernist and the bureaucracy) in accordance with the potentials of each particular department and the attitudes of the employees. The restructuring of the workplace in both the above departments would be necessary under the terms that have been presented throughout the paper. Reference Cleveland, J., Murphy, K., Stockdale, M. (2000) Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hodson, R. (2001) Dignity at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Langford, W. (1999) Revolutions of the Heart: Gender, Power, and the Delusions of Love. London: Routledge Mathews, A. 1998. Diversity: A Principle of Human Resource Management. Public Personnel Management. 27(2): 175-183 Rowden, R.W. (1999) ‘Potential Roles of the Human Resource Management Professional in the Strategic Planning Process’, SAM Advanced Management Journal, 64(3): 22-29 Spurlock, J. (2005). Modern Love: Romance, Intimacy, and the Marriage Crisis. Journal of Social History, 39(1): 287-295 Read More