Critical Studies Of Management And Organizational Theory - Essay Example

CRITICAL STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY November 27th 2006 CRITICAL STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY Traditional management studies tend to focus more on technical aspects of management rather than on actual issues managers and employees face in their work places. Rigid outlooks and stress on technique do not address aspects that are important and necessary in a changing work and business environment. There are numerous areas of specialisms and sub-disciplines that receive no treatment and have never been put through critical analysis. Current critical management studies have criticized traditional management with creating scientific or objective knowledge which is nothing more than elitist thinking institutionalized as wisdom. The result of this is the elitist groups have managed to maintain a status quo that deprives and exploits members lower down an organization due to their class, gender and ethnicity. Many of the simplistic views on management needs revision and rather than applied mechanically, critical management needs to take a broader 360 view encompassing politics and ethical perspectives. Today’s organizations and work places are a melting pot of ethnic and multi-culturally diverse set of individuals. More foreigners are employed in western businesses than ever before; young and old work together. People form a diverse backgrounds and skill sets now coordinate their work in order to arrive at the best solution for complicated problems. The merger of companies, threat of downsizing, and rapidly changing work environments have tended to create a sense of unease about job security. Even then, employees demand more from the organization they’re employed in, high expectations in terms of workplace treatment, greater respect for their individuality irrespective of their ethic, gender, racial or family background or sexual orientation. The challenge then for companies is to develop more inclusive policies and procedures to embrace a wide variety of people while respecting their individuality. This model has largely been ignored by organizations which use their employees mechanically, expecting them to only produce. Up until the mid 20th Century, the organization was seen as a machine with characteristics such as a central authority, a hierarchy of power, divisions of expertise and specialisations, categories of labour and distinct sections between staff, management from lower paid workers (Morgan 1989 p.41). With the economic boom and moves towards globalisation, the internal culture of organizations changed with greater emphasis placed on the people instead of on the inner machinery of the organization. There was more focus on delegation of authority, employee self-rule, open dialogue where concerns of workers were shared with the authority. Much of this resulted from the development of new technologies. At the work place, this meant requirement of new skill sets and specializations utilized in order to achieve organizational goals. People with expertise in various disciplines were sought and recruitment became selective. With more power to the labour force, the hierarchy of authority was forced to develop a more cooperative model of management. This in addition to the changing markets and branch diversification required management to be more adaptive. The existing scientific management model had inadequate concepts to cope with the rapidly changing work environment and there was a move towards changing the industry and discarding forms of scientific management. As society grew modern, people started to develop social etiquette and became more morally conscious. Things that were considered normal a century ago began to be questioned. Child labour for example was outlawed. Customers demanded better quality products and attitudes in society changed. This spilled over into the workplace. Dictatorial methods of authority were no longer tolerated and generally people expected proper treatment. The firm was no longer treated as a money making enterprise of a single person or the founder but rather as a collective entity where everyone had a share of the founder’s wealth. Yet leadership qualities were still considered a dominant factor in the ‘health’ of a company and it became an important component of organizational theory. In 1938 a business executive named Chester Barnard attempted to counter the bureaucratic and scientific management schools of thought and suggested the first theory of organisation. He saw organizations as cooperative entities with human involvement rather than creations of mechanical engineering. He emphasised the existence of natural groups where communication in the organisational hierarchy was upwards rather than top down, and authority came from lower managerial levels and organisational heads operated as an interconnected force (Morgan 1989 p.42). Effective communication became the core of an organisation’s success. Stanley Deetz proposed a critical communication theory which aimed at equalizing the interests of an organization with that of employees. He viewed organizations not only as economic entities but political as well, and as political entities the employees must have a say in matters of concern. His communication theory helped to analyse faulty elitist decision making. Through communication restructuring, workplaces can be improved and made constructive with democratic tendencies. But his theory questions the objectives of organizational prosperity, that organizations put a higher premium on being first and the wealthiest at the expense of the welfare of its workers. Deetz also criticizes management for valuing control above other aspects since without control, conflicts can arise which are detrimental to company progress. Conflicts within organisations are more insidious than theories of cooperation admit. Some forms of conflicts reside at a lower layer, and are hard to handle because they are entrenched in the regular interactions between employees going about their daily work (Hatch 2006 p.301). Ackroyd identifies the real nature of conflicts and tensions within institutions and disagree with a common feature in organizational analysis which is the paradigm mentality (Reed 1992 p.6). Too often institutions or organizations uphold a series of assumptions, principles, concepts and practices that represents an approach to observe reality for their own community towards a means of intellectual control and discipline. Ackroyd stresses that paradigm thinking has a negative effect in creating and evolving organizational knowledge that is both intuitive and practical. In consequence, organizational theory has failed to recognise and promote the concept of a professional managerial group capable of encouraging intellectual growth. Instead, organizational theory has disintegrated into rival theoretical divisions that hinder disciplinary institutionalization. The practical shortcomings are a deteriorating academic legitimacy for the latest theoretical developments related to organizational theory. In addition, an imposed agreement around a long held theoretical doctrine is not enough to instil an intellectual groundwork in order maintain discipline in an organizational workplace. This can only be achieved by blending various elements of the competing theoretical approaches and utilizing empirical research methods to prove their importance in enhancing organizational procedures. Till recently organizational studies focused on company strategies that made efficient use of manpower and technical power to generate profits and gain advantage over rivals in an increasingly competitive business environment. A new theory called “open-system” theory highlights the connection between external influences on organizations for example, increase in competition, changing markets and the speed of technological innovation and change (Jaffee 1998 p.64). This theory supposes that the behaviour and internal organizational composition can be altered to handle varying external situations. The orthodox structures of organizations have been subjected to critical analysis. Even the contingency model that some organizations employ, does not account for all aspects of organizational structure. In the first place structures are not just functional in nature. Organizational structures personify power relations. Secondly, organizations do not always adjust to the changing environment which the contingency model propagates. Instead they sometimes shape their environment. The orthodox view of organisational structure rarely views organisations as places where people work to obtain some benefits (Ackroyd 2002 p.73). Rather it uses people in a mechanical way in order to serve the interests of the select few in the upper echelons of managements and generate profits for the organisation. This aspect has been addressed through Critical Theory by Willmott. CT reveals the firm links between politics, principles and knowledge. This encourages deliberation upon the values and politics that supposedly legitimizes elitist view of scientific knowledge (Willmott 2005 p.204). Just as Critical Theory discovers whether or not elitist principles are well founded or not, it can also offer emancipation in the social setting of an organisation. This aspect of emancipation is reminiscent of Marx’s theory of capitalism. He identified sources of domination occurring from political economy, where under capitalism the worker is estranged in the organization with little say in key issues. Marx describes the interplay of domination and exploitation of workers at the point of manufacture. He contrasts this with the creative and free human producer. Capitalism he states, dictates that wealth is created by the labour force for a significantly smaller wage but the large share is accumulated by the employer. Some forms of debate and disagreements within Organization theory, for example between Marxist theory and contingency theory, is better appreciated in relation to the organizational arrangements and cultural patterns in which they develop. Certain schools of thought use forms of intellectual justification to secure institutional power in a multi-dimensional field of study. This advances the process of theory making in organizational study. The idea is not to resolve but to represent the conflicts and friction between competing schools of thought. These conflicts offer organization theory and critical theory an incentive for change and improvement (Perry 1992 p.85). Clegg says that critical theory must be studied as it offers new and inimitable ways to understand organizational structures and their management workings. Since management is a modernist concept, control is the key; control of people, the workforce and organization. But control also has its negative points. One is that integration costs within the organisation often surpass the costs of management. This is particularly the case when there is a move from manufacturing to services. With increases in control costs, the strains on management and strategy making also increase. When previously labour power and the internal mechanisms were the object of managements, today this has changed to focus on intellectual potential of employees and their individuality (Clegg 1996 p.192). These evolving social situations have given critical theory an impetus to work on areas of application such as organisational culture. The goal of critical theory is to create a belief among workers that they have a stake in the organization. However organizational change is difficult to achieve with ease. Many factors are involved when attempting to alter the way an organization conducts its business and deals with its employees. It has been established that in order to survive, organizations must evolve continually (Child 2005 p.277). But many organizations report that making one change necessitates making other closely related changes, without which breaks may appear in the chain of the organisation. Previously it became necessary to modify certain procedures and rules, shift the burden of responsibilities in order to keep up with external stimuli, such as governmental recommendations or national policy changes or even competitive situations. Nowadays it is not unusual for an organizations or continually review organizational structure and to implement a policy of change and make it a norm. One problem that arises is that there may be a reluctance to adopt new viewpoints when managers are set in their ways and have vested interests within the organisation. This may be the reason why scientific or objective knowledge of management is nothing but the same thinking patters from the elite management institutionalised as wisdom. The vested interests are resistant to change in order to maintain their status quo within the organisation thereby restricting members of lower classes and ethnicity from achieving their full potential within the organisation. These self serving and self preserving attitudes lead change initiatives to frequently fail. The human stumbling block has not really been overcome in many instances. In addition, any setback or unsuccessful outcome from organizational change could severely discourage employee moral and dent the credibility of the management. The solution to tackle non-reformist institutionalized thinking is to allow managers to engage in Critical Social Science studies (CSS). CSS evolved from unhappy social situations that have resulted from a degree of unhappiness from domination by those in authority. A feeling of discontent and unhappiness is the lever that Critical Theory uses in order to justify its implementation. Critical Theory best fits those lives belonging to this category. As emancipation from domination is one of the inherent attributes all humans possess, people are more likely to be associated in organizations where this aspect is addressed and tackled. CSS is not compulsory for all organizations but those utilising its features are likely to build strong internal structures that facilitate relationship building and cooperation. The elites in management may employ CSS in a number of ways. One, CSS is capable of creating a better understanding and offer insightful analysis into sources of domination. Two, due to the hierarchical nature of organizations where there are different managerial levels and positions, those at managerial level B might dominate subordinates at level C, but B themselves are dominated by those at level A. Feelings of subordination felt by those at B, might serve to help them better coordinate activities with those at C. Three, better insights might be gained by understanding that elites might use CSS to further dominate the oppressed. Four, elites might use CSS in competition with elites from groups outside their own (Nord & Jermier 2005 p.203) The utilization of CSS in an organization allows members to resist domination by what is thought to be scientific or objective knowledge disguised as institutional wisdom borne from elitist thinking. This means members can defy authoritarian rule from the elite in management and other forces of domination such as science and technology. Internal organizational setups are not the only challenges facing organizations. Modernist organization theories stress on the effect of environment on organizational behaviour and how its shapes and influences the decision making process of management and leadership. Environment is defined as that entity existing outside the organization which has little or no control over (Hatch 2006 p.62). However organizations can shape the environment. The change in environments compels change in organizations to adapt to survive. Thus the organization is dependent on the environment in order to endure. Symbolic-interpretivists regard the environment as a social formed system. That is, it is the consumer who dictates whether products or services are worthy or not. Boje and Prieto (2000) describe a successful postmodern organization as that containing a networked collection of assorted, self-supervised, self run groups of individuals with a number of different points of management that cease or continue functioning depending on the conditions that the tasks demand. These groups are structured and employees are authorized to conduct the tasks according to their determination. There is a fluidity of transfer and sharing of information and on-going development and progress is the main focus. Conclusion More and more organizations are imitating the Japanese style of management where the worker is valued and given as much priority as the actual business itself. Critical theory and studies of management are slowly chipping away at traditional organizational practices that emphasise hierarchical structures with rigid procedures and institutionalised wisdom that tend to maintain a status quo among the elite and create disparities among the various social classes working in the organization. With critical management, important social issues and employee welfare are considered equal to the business related aspects. References 1. Ackroyd, S., 2002 The Organization of Business in Modern Britain. Oxford University Press. 2. Boje, David M., Prieto, Leonel. 2000. Post-Something? Storytelling Organization. What is Postmodern? Retrieved Nov 22 2006 from horsesenseatwork website available at http://www.horsesenseatwork.com/psl/pages/postmoderndefined.html 3. Child, J., Organization. 2005. Contemporary Principles and Practice. Blackwell Publishing, Incorporated. 4. Clegg, Stewart R. 1996 Handbook of Organization Studies. Sage Publications Ltd. 5. Grey, Chris and Willmott, Hugh. 2005. Critical Management Studies Oxford University Press. 6. Hatch, M.J: 2006 Organizational Theory 2nd ed. Oxford 7. Jaffee, David 1998. Levels of Socio-economic Development Theory. Praeger Publishers 8. Morgan, Gareth. 1989 Creative Organization Theory Sage Publications. 9. Nord, Walter R., Jermier, John M. 2005. Critical Social Science for Managers? Promising and Perverse Possibilities. p. 203. In Grey, C & Willmott, H., 2005 Critical Management Studies, Oxford 10. Perry, Nick. 1992. Putting Theory in its Place: The Social Organization of Organizational Theorizing. p.85. In Reed, Mike. 1992. Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis Sage Publications. 11. Reed, Mike. 1992. Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis Sage Publications. Read More