Subordination of People to Systems and Organisations in the 21st Century - Essay Example

?Subordination of People to Systems and Organisations in the 21st Century Metaphors are vital to the comprehension of management as well as organisational theories. Management is at the centre of making sure that companies are run smoothly. Gareth Morgan stated in his book about the design of organisations, “One of the most critical problems of management in the modern era is that the reflexive way of thinking is so embedded in the common conception of corporations that it is usually hard to seek to use other approaches to organising as a function” (Morgan, 2006). He recommended that organisations should expand their ways of thinking by; a) Exposing the fact that many conformist ideas regarding management and organisation are based on a limited number of metaphors and images. b) Exploring different metaphors in order to generate new ways of reflecting on organisations c) Depicting how metaphors can be employed in assessing and diagnosing difficulties and to develop organisational design (Morgan, 2006). Morgan further illustrated his views by studying eight organisational metaphors: Machines: Organisations can be perceived to be logical enterprises, which are created to accomplish predetermined objectives in a competent manner through the linear aspects of cause and effect. Organisms: Organisations can be viewed as being living organisms that aim to transform in such a manner that they are capable of surviving or remaining relevant in a changing environment. Brains: Organisations can be viewed as being a type of brain that is flexible, inventive, and resilient. Here, the facility for intelligence is presumed to be distributed all through the enterprise, thus allowing the entire system to self-organise and develop along with the rising challenges. Cultures: Organisations can be said to be mini-societies that have their own rituals, values, beliefs and ideologies. They can also be defined as continuing procedures of reality construction that permit people to see and appreciate particular actions, events, comments, objects, and situations in distinct ways. For example, most restaurants have “back of the house” as well as “front of the house” operations (Morgan, 2006). Workers at the front are usually hired to portray a certain appearance as well as personality. The employees serving in the back might not have similar dress codes as those in the front because the culture there is totally different. Political Systems: Organisations can be perceived to be structures of political activity, with outlines of conflict, competing interests, and power. Psychic Prisons: Organisations can be viewed as being systems that get caught up in their own objectives in which mind traps, obsessions, strong emotions, narcissism, anxiety, illusions of control, and defence mechanisms are at the centre of attention. Flux and Transformation: Organisations are perceived as being representations of the lengthy processes of change. Instruments of Domination: Organisations are perceived to be systems that take advantage of the natural environment, their workers, and the worldwide economy to accomplish their own objectives (Robertson, Wang and Trivisvavet, 2007) Managers usually oversee functions in all organisations. A manager is a person who organises, plans, controls and leads the activities as well as the employees of an organisation in an efficient way that leads to the organisation realising its objectives. Management specifically concerns the managers of a business as well as their responsibilities in that organisation. Many people believe that managers are made, not born; while others feel that managerial skills form an intrinsic quality that cannot be taught. It has been suggested that the reality is a combination of both opinions (Morgan, 2006). A manager has to have an intrinsic potential before the talent can be fine tuned into being a useful skill. The basic underlying skills are not enough to make a person become a good manager. The inborn skill to be manager has to be developed in the right environment and given the correct stimulus before it can be considered to be worthwhile or even valuable. Left Brain and Right Brain Models In recent years, scientists have discovered that the brain’s two hemispheres are different in an additional manner. The left hemisphere has to do with the functions of logical thinking, while the right brain hemisphere is concerned with simultaneous processing. The right brain hemisphere operates with great chunks of information presented through various visual images and patterns, resulting in an ability to handle complex issues intuitively. Planning, for example, would be a function in which the left brain hemisphere directs, while the right brain hemisphere would be more likely to dominate during discussion of strategic thinking (Milward and Provan, 2006). The organisational theorist, Daniel Pink, states that economic development has evolved through the ages from the days of the agriculturally based economies to the present day of post modern organisations (Pink, 2005). He divides the eras through which industries have changed into four categories. These are: The Agriculture era where most employees were farmers The Industrial period where most employees were factory workers The Information Age where most employees knowledge workers who are highly skilled The Conceptual Age in which most employees will be empathisers and creators Pink states that the left-brain method of thinking or reflecting, which tends to be analytical is slowly being replaced by right-brain inventiveness, empathy, and diversity skills. This is because the right-brain traits are being viewed as being absolutely necessary for businesses to survive in this era of globalisation. This aspect basically serves to emphasise that creativity gives an organisation more competitive advantage by increasing value to its products or services and by distinguishing the organisation from its competitors. In the post modern society, members get their identity through their own definition of self, unlike the modernist society where one’s chosen role in society, or even family unit, defined his or her identity. In the post modern society, people form their own space and niche (Kanigel, 2005). That niche can be discarded or reformed due to changing circumstances. The person’s self stays intact through all these changes as it is not dependent on anyone or anything else’s definitions. Postmodernism implies a structure that is open to being affected by external environment. In this post modern and fast-changing environment, it is very important that organisations remain responsive, flexible, and innovative; constantly signifying to society the readiness to reconfigure and reorganise corporate assets to cater to new challenges as well as opportunities (Harder, Robertson and Woodward, 2004). Greiner’s Model of Five Phases of Growth When organisations develop, their operations as well as structures are subject to change. They require new types of leadership as well as communication in order to stay relevant. Larry Greiner proposed a development model that was based on five stages; he would later include a sixth phase (Healey, 2006). These phases are: Phase 1: development through creativity An industrialist concentrates on manufacturing new goods and services. A small number of employees can be supervised through a shared vision and informal communication. As the company expands, there is a leadership crisis that necessitates a more professional method of management. Phase 2: development through direction Development continues even with new management. There is more transparency as far as the corporate objectives are concerned. Budgets become a normal fixture and business operations are more plainly defined. This could lead to an autonomy crisis, with a need to identify clearer hierarchies as well as corporate structures prior to delegating tasks. Phase 3: development through delegation In this phase, management takes a more strategic role as managers continue to enhance their basic functions. The result is usually a crisis of control. Managers who practiced a directive approach in Phase 1 find it hard to change. A more sophisticated managing method has to be used to ensure that all organisational divisions are working together. Phase 4: development through monitoring and coordination In this stage, corporate development improves with better coordination; however, the complexity of the organisation’s administration generates a red-tape crisis. Phase 5: development through collaboration The organisation’s formal control construction is expanded to contain more flexibility for personnel to group along project lines. Innovative information systems are also a trait of this stage. This stage can cause a crisis of internal growth; as the firm may need to consider the reality that there are other opportunities for growth outside the organisation. Phase 6: development through alliances This is the stage that was added later by Greiner. It recognises that sometimes organisations have to pursue development opportunities through outsourcing, mergers & acquisitions, or making alliances (Yang and Guy, 2004). Postmodernism is viewed as being a theory that rejects factors that support the modernist worldview, such as notions concerned with meaning, purpose, and views about truth. In this respect, deconstructive postmodernism might be considered as being nihilistic. Jacques Derrida’s theory of deconstruction is the basis of many present day postmodern ideas (Page, 2003). Deconstruction is based on the notion that there has to be oppositional relationships, where one element is dominant over the other (Friedman, 2005). It is the deconstructionist’s objective to inspect those binary oppositions and remove them. Deconstruction undermines the concept of Platonic forms because its founder, Derrida, sought to displace traditional hierarchies in support of a "reversal" that overturns structural accounts of reality. Deconstruction is a means of confronting society’s mores and realities with the objective of looking for the alternative or hidden view. It also questions absolutist conceptions that support the existence of unshakable truths (Friedman 2005). Deconstruction is, anti-constructivist and anti-foundationalist in its approach to comprehending post modern organisations (Huxham and Vangen, 2005). The Organisation as a Psychic Prison To fit today's high-tech business environment, a new type of organisation is developing. The so-called post-entrepreneurial organisation, which is information-based, represents all the qualities of a postmodern organisation. An organisational theorist stated that organisations, such as those in this new model, create their own reality from what their limited perspective exposes them to. The metaphor of the organisation being a psychic prison allows people to comprehend that while organisations are socially created establishments, their existence is usually attributed to the organisation’s ability to control its creators. Morgan's concept of the psychic prison is derived from Plato's The Republic metaphor of an underground cavern where people are imprisoned and thus can only see the cave wall before them (Page, 2003). Owing to the fact that they are accustomed to interpreting everything from the shadows that they see in the cave as well as the voices they hear from the outside, even when the prisoners are released, it is likely that they will continue to interpret the things they see in the outer world, and that have nothing to do with caves, according to misconstrued shadows and unclear voices as well as inferences (Robbins, 2004). The former cave dwellers, even when released after a long time of imprisonment, would have a hard time embracing new ways of thinking. There experience in the cave will remain as their psychic prison, stopping them from understanding all other facts as they were intended (DeSeve, 2007). While Morgan only used this figure of speech to portray how workers in organisations can trapped in their reflection patterns, it can even be used to address the issues faced in normal psychology by people who wish to improve their circumstances but feel trapped because they are unaware of how to accomplish it. This metaphor also shows why organisational change is so hard to achieve (Bergquist, 2004). Change is basically a personal process. Therefore, employees of organisations cannot be ‘herded’ into the realisation of their ‘trapped’ mindsets, but have to reach that conclusion after their individual private journeys (Page, 2003). The restlessness that comes to different individuals after fulfilling past objectives is particularly helpful in channelling them onto the path towards destroying old mind sets. Moreover, this kind of change is quite difficult to achieve and may take more than a few days for an employee to reach. There are factors that contribute towards understanding how the ‘psychic prison’ situation comes to be within organisations.  Handy's Six Concepts for Understanding Organisations These include: Motivation: In the psychic prison metaphor, organisations can be viewed as institutions that seek perfection. Like human beings, anxiety inhibits organisations and stops them from learning when the organisations reject any criticism. In such organisations, a culture of defensiveness as well as tension is the result of such efforts (Handy, 2006).  Roles: In the metaphor of the psychic prison, the organisation can be compared to the patriarchal/family structure, in the Freudian interpretation, in an effort to define how strictures affect its overall performance. From a Western point of view, there are numerous organisations that form structures that endorse traditional male values. Formal organisations are usually structured upon qualities that are found in men from Western nations. Women are socialised to accept roles whose main function is to support, please or entertain. Successful organisations, in a similar manner, assume the patriarchal role in having cultures that support only a particular type of character. All other traits, whether they are proved successful or not, are viewed as being subordinate or somehow lesser to the main acknowledged trait (Handy, 2006). Leadership: In the psychic prison metaphor, leadership through discipline, ethics, obedience, and attention to detail can be viewed as being the result of compulsiveness and a rigorous indoctrination method given to successive workers by organisations (Bohlander and Snell, 2006).  Power and Influence: In the psychic prison metaphor, the organisation may be unconsciously used by viewed by corporate executives as an extension of the family where only the male has the right of assuming authority. The organisation thus assumes more powers than it has in the eyes of its workers; who will then be uncomfortable with the thought of altering any mindset about it (Handy, 2006). Groups: In organisations, team work is something that is an ordinary trait. Moreover, groups serve to dissuade their elements from developing ideas that are independent of the norm. Groups can also easily regress into calm and comforting albeit ineffective behaviours that serve to protect workers from having to take the difficult road of realising the change that will result in a more productive future for the company as well as each individual employer. Regressions in collective behaviour are basically defences against the anxiety that comes with change (Handy, 2006). Culture: In the psychic prison metaphor, culture holds an unconscious connotation. It is a recognised fact that underlying inclinations can be destructive. The values that unite the employees in an organisation are usually based on unexpressed and unacknowledged concerns. For example, workers may impair the success of a colleague if they fear that his or success means they will be viewed as being incompetent. They will do this even if it demoralises their entire division or corporation. The psychic prison metaphor portrays pathologies that employees might have. It also encourages employees to engage in personal self reflection about why they make the decisions they make within the organisation (Handy, 2006). Conclusion In many organisations, employees know more about their work than their managers. It is a fact that organisations today dictate people’s lives. Organisations stipulate that a person’s activity can be said to be productive only when it is sold. The influence of the ‘organisation’ principles in society has served to make people seek to commoditise everything. In the post modern era, people are being subjugated to machines, unlike the modernist era of mass production where workers oversaw machines. Production technology has basically served to de-skill workers in a cycle where they are fed so as to balance consumption and production. In the post modern era, employment is perceived to be a socialising force, which no individual should escape. The fetishisation of consumption and work has a debilitating effect on workers’ minds and bodies when they are finally retrenched or laid off. Basically, any adult person that is not a part of an organisation in the present society is somehow viewed as being a liability to him as well as the general society. References Bergquist, W.H. (2004) Creating the appreciative organisation, Pacific Soundings Press, Sacramento. Bohlander, G. & Snell, S. (2006) Managing human resources, South-Western College Publishers, Florence. DeSeve, G.E. (2007) ‘Creating managed networks as a response to societal challenges’, The Business of Government, pp. 47-52. Friedman, T.L. (2005) The world is flat, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Handy, C. (2006) Myself and other more important matters, Amacom Books, New York. Harder, J.W., Robertson, P.J. & Woodward, H. (2004) ‘The spirit of the new workplace: breathing life into organisations’, Organisational Development Journal, vol.22, pp.79-103. Healey, P. (2006) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (2005) managing to collaborate: the theory and practice of collaborative advantage, Routledge, New York. Kanigel, R. (2005) The one best way: Frederick Winslow Taylor and the enigma of efficiency -sloan technology, The MIT Press, Massachusetts. Milward, H.B. & Provan, K.G. (2006) A manager’s guide to choosing and using collaborative networks, IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington. Morgan, G. (2006) Images of organisation, SAGE, New York. Moynihan, D.P. (2005) ‘Goal-based learning and the future of performance management’, Public Administration Review, vol.65, pp.203-216. Page, S. (2003) ‘Entrepreneurial strategies for managing interagency collaboration’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol.13, pp.311-339. Pink, D. (2005) A whole new mind - why right-brainers will rule the future, Riverhead Trade, New York Robbins, S.P. (2004) Organisational behaviour - concepts, controversies, applications, 4th Ed. Prentice Hall, New York Robertson, P.J., Wang, F. & Trivisvavet, S. (2007) ‘Self- and collective interests in public organisations: an empirical investigation’, Public Performance & Management Review, vol.31, pp.54-84 Yang, S. & Guy, M.E. (2004) ‘Self-managed work teams: who uses them? what makes them successful?’ Public Performance & Management Review, vol.27, pp. 60-79. Read More