The Latest Development of Evolution in the Field of Organizational and Management Science - Case Study Example

Running Head: Advanced Organizational Behavior Advanced Organizational Behavior [Institute’s Advanced Organizational BehaviorIntroduction Without any doubts, the world has been changing ever since the first man came out of those dark caves and as they say, “the only thing that remains constant is change”. However, important here to note is that over the past one and half century or so, this process of change has geared up. In fact, this change is taking place at exponential rates and compounded with globalization, revolution of information technology and increased competition, the world has been forced to move again to the “survival of the fittest” mode. Quite understandably, this has influenced the corporate world greatly; in fact, it is responsible for the evolution that the organizational and management science has gone through over the past century or so (McAuley, Duberley & Johnson, pp. 149-153, 2007). This paper, however, is an attempt to look at the latest development of evolution in the field of organizational and management science, which is the postmodern organizational theory. This paper would attempt to decode these concepts by comparing it with the modern approach and by presenting examples of its applications. Discussion It is imperative to shed some light on modern concept of organizations before looking at the post modernism of organizational science. A boarder version of modern organizational science may go on to include the pre classical, classical, scientific, behavioral, quantitative, neo behavioral and systems version of organizational science. The modern approach to organizational analysis is very closely linked to rational choice theory where managers constantly engage in behaviors with which they try to minimize their costs and maximize their profits, even at the stake of other elements. The modern approach to organizational analysis asks managers to take a take a very passive and impersonal approach towards their employees and view them simply as a resource for the company, like any other financial, physical, or technological resource, which needs to be exploited properly to maximize the return on investment (Miner, pp. 5-8, 2007). Under the modern approach of organizational analysis, employees are just a factor that adds to the variable costs of the company and quite understandably, for survival in this competitive world, these costs should be minimized constantly. Furthermore, strict planning, and more importantly, top-down planning is the key to success. Moreover, this planning would lead to division of departments and division of labor with strict schedules, rules and regulations, job specifications, job descriptions and homogeneity (Hatch & Cunliffe, pp. 15-18, 2006). Modern approach also believes that tall organizations, the one with many layers of management is better than any other options since it ensures total control and proper scrutiny of all actions thus helps to avoid any undesirable situation or consequence. Modern approach of organizational analysis also sticks to the idea that it has to tell all the employees what to do and how to do it. It believes that employees should be lead by their managers, directed and controlled at each step regarding their jobs and actions. Modern approach also firmly believes that strong systems of reward and punishments are the best way to tame and alter employee behavior in such a way, which can create win-win situations for both the parties. Modern approach also focuses a lot on creating competitive advantages in fighting with the competitors in such a way, which can help them outclass their competitors for maximum period of time (Tsoukas & Knudsen, pp. 18-19, 2005). One the other hand, the most modern approach of organizational science talks a more dynamic and boarder view towards the organizations and rather than down looking at the organizations from too close it tries to take a few steps back and have a look at the boarder picture. More importantly, this “boarder picture” not only includes looking at all the stakeholders but also the past and the future as well. According to one definition of postmodern organization, “The postmodern organization may be defined as that comprising a networked set of diverse, self-managed, self-controlled teams with poly-centers [many centers] of coordination that fold and unfold according to the requirements of the tasks. Likewise, these teams are organized in flat design, employees are highly empowered and involved in the job, information is fluid and continuous improvement is emphasized throughout” (Mills, Mills, Bratton & Forshaw, pp. 41-46, 2006). Quite clearly, the postmodern organizations emphasizes on creating a mutual environment where employees are not treated as a variable cost but as an inseparable part of the company. It asks firms to leave the rational choice theory and take a long-term focus towards businesses and industries. When modern approach talks repeatedly about strict planning, the postmodern approach tends to avoid strict and rigid planning. The idea here is that extensive planning leads to robotic and controlled behavior like those animals that are trained in circus to perform certain behaviors repeatedly. Those animals are punished and rewarded, in light of those behaviors. Those animals that perform in those circuses have no deal of authority over themselves (Crowther & Green, pp. 89-97, 2004). Postmodern approach asks the organizations to create some difference between these employees as humans and the trained animals or circus or programmed robots. Postmodernism puts great emphasizes on creating environments of mutual trust within the organizations and then empowering employees to great deals so that they can take their own decisions. It asks managers to leave planning and let things present a picture of a rollercoaster ride since that it is the only way to unleash the untapped talent, creativity, and innovative potentials of their employees. Flexibility, mutuality, cooperation, embracing, respecting and celebrating diversity, customer focus, self-discipline team working, decentralization, flat and organic organizations, team incentives, visionary and dynamic leaderships are some of the key features of these organizations (Robbins & Judge, pp. 47-49, 2010). More importantly, where the modern approach to organizational management asks the companies to find better way to outclass their competitors and create competitive advantage for them, the postmodern approach asks the organizations to their competition irrelevant. Rather staying in the red oceans (red since they are bloody due to fights) with competitors, organizations should innovate with a future focus in such a way that they could move to new untapped blue oceans where they would virtually no competition (May & Mumby, pp. 309-314, 2005). Most of the critics of postmodern approaches are of the view that even if these postmodern approaches are mesmerizing and captivating to discuss and look to be solving many of the problems on paper and in theory but they are hardly applicable in the practical sense. Before reaching conclusion on this argument here, it is crucial to look at two organizations. The first one is Gore. It was in 1958 when a DuPont chemical engineer, Wilbert L. Bill Gore, left his job, along with his wife opened a company in his garage, and named it as W. L. Gore & Associates. Despite the fact that his initial idea was to make his dream come true of commercializing new uses of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) but he refrained himself from defining any core business for its company. He had the vision that Gore would be a company, which would move forward with the vision of unleashing talent, continuous innovation, and defining the future for customers. At Gore, somebody does not become a leader by formal authority or designation but by his influence over others. If a team leader calls a meeting and nobody shows up then not the team members but the leader is in trouble. He would be asked then to step down because of his inability to exert his power over his team members (Linstead, pp. 254-258, 2004). Since from the very first day until this date, Gore has been an extremely flat and organic organization, where there are no job titles, no management layers and all the 9000 employees working from 30 different countries in the world, regardless of their job call themselves are called as “associates”. There are no bosses, managers, division heads, vice presidents, senior vice presidents, executive directors, and others. The company operates under a group of board of directors and a CEO. In fact, a true story about Gore is that when a newcomer asked that “where is my boss?” she was strictly told, not to use the B-word (Clegg, Hardy & Nord, pp. 17-26, 1996). When a newcomer comes to Gore, he finds himself assigned to sponsor who would be responsible for familiarizing him with the “Gore way of doing things”, decode the jargon for him, reveal the mystic lattice, and arrange the job rotation for him to several teams till he explores his real talent and establishes a reputation for himself. Another norm at Gore is that work places, offices, or plants should not exceed from 200 workers at maximum. Gore believes that it is important that all associates are well aware of their fellow associates; they constantly share ideas, talk, and work together in harmony and mutuality. However, when these groups increase in size then there is a higher probability that “we believe” actually becomes “they believe” and at Gore, this is considered as the worst-case scenario (McShane & Glinow, pp. 109-110, 2009). Semco is another organization that is a good example of an organization, which is working with this postmodern organizational theory. In fact, the same is very much evident in the thought of the company’s current CEO and visionary Ricardo Semler thoughts that he expressed in a Harvard Business Review article. He said, “I believe in responsibility but not in pyramidal hierarchy. I think that strategic planning and vision are often barriers to success. I dispute the value of growth. I do not think a company’s success can be measured in numbers, since the numbers ignore what the end user really thinks of the product and what the people who produce it really think of the company. I question the supremacy of talent, too much of which is as bad as too little. I’m not sure I believe that control is either expedient or desirable.” Semco came into existence in 1952 in Brazil, founded by Antonio; it initially specialized in marine pumps. However, the turning point in the history of the company came when his son Ricardo Semler took over the company in 1980 at the age of 21 (Linstead, pp. 254-258, 2004). Semco, like Gore, does not have any formal organizational chart and the CEO Ricardo Semler is extremely strict in this regard as well. If for any purposes, Semco ever needs an organizational chart, the same is drawn on a sheet of paper and then it is quickly disposed. Interestingly, Semco not only has flexible working hours but the employees also get a chance to choose their own tasks and responsibilities (Crowther & Green, pp. 89-97, 2004). Furthermore, this allows them to choose their own salary as well which remains visible to all other employees on the company website. Moreover, the company has virtually no rules expect the rules of employee safety and health. Employees are free to design their offices and wear any sort of dresses. Additionally, employees enjoy high levels of job security at Semco. Any employee who has been working for the past three years or so, or is in his fifteens cannot be fired without a long list of approvals from his seniors and colleagues (Westwood & Clegg, pp. 350-353, 2003). However, it is also important to understand the fact that the application of this postmodern organizational theory is not widespread and its usage is limited in most organizations. Even the organizations that claim to be taking the most radical and postmodern approach like above mentioned examples of Gore and Semco and other “paperless offices” still have to operate with the support and under the limitations of traditional and modern elements like late capitalism, science, technology, system, society and others. Despite the fact that it is widely debated and many organizations have been fascinated by these concepts, yet, very few organizations can claim postmodernism within themselves (Casey, pp. 156-158, 2002). References Casey, Catherine. 2002. Critical analysis of organizations: theory, practice, revitalization. SAGE Publications. Clegg, Stewart R., Hardy, Cynthia, & Nord, Walter R. 1996. Handbook of organization studies. SAGE Publications Ltd. Crowther, David, & Green, Miriam. 2004. Organisational theory. CIPD Publishing. Hatch, Mary Jo., & Cunliffe, Ann L. 2006. Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. Oxford University Press. Linstead, Stephen. 2004. Organization theory and postmodern thought. SAGE. May, Steve, & Mumby, Dennis K. 2005. Engaging organizational communication theory & research: multiple perspectives. Sage Publications. McAuley, John, Duberley, Joanne, & Johnson, Phil. 2007. Organization theory: challenges and perspectives. Prentice Hall/Financial Times. McShane, Steven, & Glinow, Mary Ann Von. 2009. Organizational Behavior. McGraw-Hill. Mills, Albert J., Mills, Jean C. Helms., Bratton, John, & Forshaw, Carolyn. 2006. Organizational Behaviour in a Global Context. University of Toronto Press. Miner, John B. 2007. Organizational behavior: From theory to practice. M.E. Sharpe. Robbins, Stephen P., & Judge, Timothy A. 2010. Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall. Tsoukas, Haridimos, & Knudsen, Christian. 2005. The Oxford handbook of organization theory. Oxford University Press. Westwood, Robert Ian, & Clegg, Stewart. 2003. Debating organization: point-counterpoint in organization studies. Wiley-Blackwell. Read More