Critical Theory: Exploited or Empowered - Research Paper Example

?Critical Theory: Exploited or empowered? Goal: The Critical Management Studies (CMS), as a concept, aims at challenging the rationality of existing management practices. These groups of critics support the view that employees are exploited either by the organisation and management or by themselves under multi-faceted pressures. In short, the CMS challenges the standard norms of management theories and helps in identifying gaps, issues, and concerns of employees and management; it challenges students towards critical analysis of existing management principles that are being practiced (Akella, 2008). Critical theory pronounces management theories as demoralized and of producing domination and progressive deterioration of moral responsibility when aspects of people and environment confront organisational profitability (Adler, Forbes & Willmott, 2007). As pointed out by the CMS, pressures on employees by their managers are inevitable considering various external and internal challenges. Although managers at different levels enjoy varied levels of power (empowerment), at all levels these employees are somehow or the other exploited because their power is limited and dominated by the capitalistic power. Unequal distribution of power is inevitable considering the employees’ levels of qualification, experience and abilities. If individuals are empowered differently irrespective of the qualifying factors, then exploitation becomes the norm, which creates dissatisfaction and demoralization (Katyal, 2009). In conclusion, the Critical theories of management highlight issues that certainly require management attention in order to safeguard their organisational position through employee motivation; however, this would be possible only when responsibility and power are congruent with knowledge and abilities of individuals at all levels. References Adler, P.S, Forbes, L.C and Willmott, H. 2007. Critical Management Studies. In Brief, A and Walsch, J’s The Academy of Management Annals of Organization and Management. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. (pp:145-218). Akella, D. 2008. A reflection on critical management studies. Journal of Management and Organisation, 14 (1): 100-110. Katyal, S. 2009. Critical management studies: Perspectives on information system. New Delhi: Global India Publications Pft Ltd. Institutional Theory: Why mimesis matters Goal: The aim here is to challenge Scott’s (2008) view that organisations tend to adopt patterns from outside because the extent of conformity between the organisational elements varies across organisations. The institutional theory does not identify or underpin any specific concepts, definitions, measures or methods followed by organisations, but considers institutionalization as process and varies with every organisation (Tobert & Zucker, 1999). It is built on the premise that organisations depend upon patterns of practices, technologies, systems etc built within, however validated outside or elsewhere. This patterning, as Scott (1994) explains, is necessary because it becomes socially and culturally acceptable. However, if organisations choose to divisionalise, their success would depend upon the extent of conformity between different organisational functions. Nevertheless, divisionalisation in relation to institutional isomorphism improves social and cultural acceptance. However, divisionalisation should vary with the location/country. For instance, organisations operating in multiple locations/countries have different institutional environment and hence varying pressures. The structure, divisionalisation, strategies etc should conform to environmental elements of respective locations/countries in order to conduct sustainable business and operations. In such cases, organisations tend to adopt mimetic isomorphism during conditions of uncertainty. They tend to adopt established models of other organisations that were efficient and effective, without spending much time, effort and costs. In conclusion, mimetic components are incorporated into the corresponding institutional environment in order to establish better management and achieve better outcomes in lesser time and with lesser costs. However, congruency of these mimetic components with institutional elements will be the deciding factors for desired organisational outcomes. References Scott, R. W and Meyer, J.W. 1994. Institutional environments and organisations: structural complexity and individualism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (pp: 1-8). Scott, R.W. 2008. Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37, 427-442. Tolbert, P.S and Zucker, L.C 1999. The Institutionalization of Institutional theory. In Clegg, S, Hardy, C and Nord, W.S’s Handbook of Organisational Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (pp: 169-184). Neo-Institutional Theory: why change matters Goal: The institutional theory was countered by the fact that though organisations tend to mime external models within the realm of legislative elements, desired outcomes from the mimetic models will not be guaranteed unless they suit the organisational nature and functions. Limitation of institutional theory formed ground for argument for Meyer and colleagues resulting in the neo-institutional thinking which emphasizes modification, manipulation, and revision of models adopted from external sources or other organisations to suit their organisation (Scott, 2008). DiMaggio and Powell (1991) attribute the emergence of neo-institutionalism to the behaviour revolution in terms of political and economic behaviour as the cause for individual choice. Moreover, the fact that organisational fields are split and contain many institutional pressures, their actual requirements remain indefinite. While organisations tend to adopt established norms and rules based on their counterparts’ success stories, abiding by the legislation is also equally important. More often, these norms and rules are created internally rather than externally. This creates endogenous governance framework in addition to external legislative governance. These endogenous elements are then termed ‘best practices’ by organisations. Both competitive and cooperative forces between organisations cause continuous strife within and between organisations to which human elements are continually pressurized. For instance, organisational policies and regulations aligned to political and legislative requirements need to be changed in cross-national setups in order to suit the foreign policies and regulations. This creates sufficient chaos in terms of evaluation standards (Powell, 2007). In total, whatever forms/models organisations adopt, to cooperate with legislative and political entities and to compete with economic and organisational forces, continuous change and transformative actions become necessary. References DiMaggio, P.J and Powell, W.W. 1991. Introduction. In The new institutionalism In organisational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Powell, W.W. 2007. The New Institutionalism. The international encyclopedia of organisation Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publisher. Scott, R.W. 2008. Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society, 37, 427-442. Practice Theory: a learning perspective Goal: Practice theory focuses on emerging models and learning within organizations. The multidimensional view of practice theory that originated from multiple writings is based on formal techniques used in real action in relation to the culture in the form of representations, a very useful methodology that teaches the relationship between different levels of institutional elements and social actions and their impact on the subcultures thus evolved. It advocates that emergence of new subcultures or learning is an important feature for development and progression. Practice theory encourages practical application of the social knowledge, or know-how, which would otherwise remain as assumptive knowledge because it has not be empirically validated. Such wisdom can be practiced and applied when it is properly formulated into concepts and statements. Both these points have been driven home by Coleman (1990) and Bourdieu (1996) in their own ways, with the former supporting contextual study related to structural study towards generalizations and the latter encouraging structural study to analyse practical situations, performance to interpret cultural and social actions (Breiger, 2000). In reality, application of knowledge derived from contextual or structural analysis could be extremely challenging and incongruent with changing situations and emerging challenges. Curnock and Hardiker (1979) had long before identified that such practice theories are applied to specific situations, and would require thoughts, instinct and interest along with experience, insight, and understanding. Application of these attributes renders earlier formulated practice theories void; and, result in new dimensions, structure/model for corresponding situation. Hence, the ground rule that practice theories combine many types of knowledge to arrive at purposeful conclusion still remains true, but the procedure and outcomes cannot be influenced. References Breiger, R.L. 2000. A tool kit for practice theory. Poetics, 27, 91-115. Curnock, K and Hardiker, P. 1979. Towards practice theory: skills and methods in social assessments. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. Read More