Collegiality in Organization Behavior - Term Paper Example

 Collegiality in Organization Behavior Introduction  In order to understand the topic understudy one has to define and identify key issues about the topic. This section attempts to describe what organization is, then proceed to understand what organization behavior is and lastly link collegiality with organization behavior. An organization is viewed in terms of its constituents or elements, interactions between the elements, autonomy and rules that govern the actions of the elements. Organization behavior is a subset of Organizational studies also known as organizational science. Organizational studies employ systematic study and application of knowledge on how people behave or interact within organizations. It is an inter-disciplinary subject drawing from sociology, psychology, anthropology etc. Organization behavior is concerned with the relationships and interactions of the whole person, whole institution within the context of the entire social system. This is referred to as system approach. The mission of organization behavior is the application is the concepts of behavioral sciences in an organization (Robbins, 2004). On the other hand, the word collegiality comes from the word college which means a group of people coming together for a common course. Many scholars think of collegiality as being the cooperative relationship of colleagues. The term collegiality was first used in the Roman Catholic Church to mean the participation of clergymen in running the affairs of the Roman Catholic Church. In the first instance it was used to mean the working together as a team in ensuring the smooth running of the church. On the other hand, collegiality could be looked at as the relationship between colleagues and the colleagues could be seen as those “people explicitly united in a common purpose and respecting each other's abilities to work toward that purpose”. Thus it is clear that the term collegiality means the coming together of different people, whether by force or by choice, bounded by an explicit goal, written or unwritten, working together, even though they might have different professions or roles, to achieve a common objective (Davis , 1967). There has to be harmonious relation between the people for the objective to be attained. For instance, a university has many departments and each department has its own specific objectives to meet. At the same time, the specific objectives have to be linked to the overall objectives of the university which in turn contributes to the mission of the university. In this case, each department can be referred to as a college and the people in it are colleagues. A synonym of collegiality is collaboration i.e. sharing of knowledge and resources to achieved mutual goals. Sociologists on the other hand use the word collegiality in a more technical manner. For instance in organization behavior it means collective decision making, partnership, teamwork, consensus building, collaboration of people of diverse backgrounds in running non routine tasks (Robbins, 2004). It is viewed as a form of running an organization, where interdependent people come together to achieve a common goal. In this case collegiality is somewhat an acronym of specialization. As observed by Professor Laws, E in his paper on advantages of collegiality, collegiality has to involve a sense of community. This concept of community has philosophical, psychological, and geographical connotations (Laws, 2010). He also takes note that collegiality also has to involve the aspect of shared objectives with a desired noble end. He further explains that the end ought to outweigh individualism tendencies. According to him intellectual values are the building pillars of a profession and outweigh political, commercial and egocentric values (Hardy, 1996). In management collegiality systems are associated with strong cordial ties between the manager and his subordinates. These ties most of the time are personal; the rational is to create friendly working environment thus allowing free flow of ideas and information. The concept of ‘collegiality’ is criticised as being too idealistic and academic and therefore can connote ambiguous meaning in terms of interpretation. Therefore it needs some clarification in the context of this paper (Westley, 1990). Key issues in collegiality in organization behavior In simple terms, the issue of collegiality for the purpose of this paper constitutes the following critical elements: One is the concept of colleagues. For the purpose of this paper colleagues are people with diverse abilities working together respectifuly towards a common noble purpose. In this case ‘collegiality’ involves respect for peoples ability and working to wards a common good. The issue of common good or ‘noble purpose’ has to be emphasised since there are some collegialities formed for ill intentions. In this case there are ‘positive’ collegiates and ‘negative’ ones. This research focused on positive collegiates. It is important to note the aspect of diversity in unity, in that collegiates entails individuals from diverse backgrounds and disciplines each with a different perspective and knowledge however they are working together to attain synergies in delivering the noble output. This view is shared by Waters (1989) when he argues on collegial arrangements as ‘those in which there is a dominant orientation to a consensus achieved between the members of a body of experts who are theoretically equal in their levels of expertise but who are specialised in their areas of expertise (Waters, 1989). It is also important to note that collegiality is associated with ‘professionalism’. The Webster’s Third international dictionary defines a profession as ‘A calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive preparation including instruction in skills and methods as well as in the scientific, historical, or scholarly principles underlying such skills and methods, maintaining by force of organization or concerted opinion high standards of achievement and conduct, and committing its members to continued study and to a kind of work which has for its prime purpose the rendering of a public service’ (Webster, n.d). This definition has collegiate manifestation due to the fact the profesionals are institutionally bound by an organisation to use their expertise for the common good of the society. The issue of ethics and good standard is linked with collegiality. In this case collegiality has to involve professionalism as evidenced in teaching, medical, judicial and other fields. However it is not exclusively associated with professionalism as noted by Rose (2004). But for the purpose of this paper we will adopt those associated with professionalism. Literature review suggests that collegiality is closely associated with good governance or leadership. This view is supported by Gerring, et al. 2005). They For example, they argue that effective leadershi argue that good leadership has to involve the stakeholders and consensus reaching in every aspect of governance. Consensus cannot there fore be reached without solidarity and cooperations all of which are aspects of collegiality. Therefor it is important to link collegialiy with leadership and goverenace. It is true then that good leadership or governance has to adopt collegiality. These sentiment are being echoed and applied in the field of public service in mature democracies (Gerring, et al., 2005). Another aspect of collegiality that has to be discussed is networking. It is true that without networking, there is no collegialism. Networking involves sharing of information and resources. Without these exchanges then there will be no knowledge and technology transfer. In this modern day, it is also important to note the different kinds of networks or collegiates. Firstly we have formal and informal collegiates and secondly face to face and virtual collegiates. Formal collegiates are those which are explitly outlined, whereas the informal one do not adopt any kind structure. Due to geographic limitations there exist face to face and virtual collegiates. Virtual collegiates adopt the ICT platform to enable the interractions, at the moment there are associations of professionals which are global in their operations (Waters, 1989). Communication is also an ingredient of collegiality. Matters of common interest have to be communicated to all the parties involved so as to facilitate dialogue and concensus building within organiasations. Communication has to be seamless in that no information is witheld to anyinterdiscplinaryhas to do with communication group within the team. Lack of communication will result in disintegration of the team due to misunderstanding and perceptions of ‘hidden agenda’ by one group against the other. Collective decision making has to be encouraged in a collegiate. Problems needs to be identfied and addressed together using such platforms as brainstorming, open dialogue and consensus building. Collegialities also demand active participation of all the constituents within a collegiate arrangement. It should be noted that in formal collegiate roles are usually established and assigned to members, at the same time there is room for consultations in between the roles assigned so as to sharpen ideas. The rationale of this is the acknowledgement of the fact that any decision affects the entire system i.e. if one group is not pulling then the entire collegiate will fail. In the context of organization behavior, positive collegiality is encouraged as it is the mission of organizational behavior as a study to influence good practice in the organization. It is important to point out that the concept of collegiate is currently being adopted as a modern way of running institutions. Its application include in School management, civil service, professional organizations etc. It application collegiality has been used in university quarters to advance truth and knowledge within and without the institutions. Universities collaborate internally with the various departments and at the same time collaborate with external partners to advance knowledge and practical solution to the society’s problems. This form of collegiality requires an atmosphere of mutual respect. In the practice of collegiality, organizations should cultivate the following elements: professionalism, mutual respect, and pursuit of noble outputs, consensus building, collective decision making, good governance, networking, seamless and transparent communication and active participation amongst members (Robbins, 2004). Discussion Advantages of collegial systems A collegial system presents obvious advantages in an organisation. For instance, the involvement of the people in decision making, a key ingredient of collegiality, presents the obvious advantages in an organization. It has been observed the learning organizations employ the spirit of collegiality. These organizations are usually committed to continuous development of the individuals, groups and the entire organization (Kenway, 1999). The principle of people involvement is also at the heart of the concept of decentralization, where power and authority is divested to groups or more people rather than an individual. The involvement of people in decision making encourages warm and harmonious relations thus fostering team work as opposed to territorial tendencies within an organization. Westley (1990) observes that the exclusion of mid level managers from strategy formulation process will certainly inhibit the implementation of the strategy because it is the mid-level managers who implement the organizations strategies. He recommends their inclusion of midlevel managers as this will motivate them to implement the strategies. It is also true that due to the fact that they are the doers they have the potential to provide useful information on improving the current systems and developing new ones (Westley, 1990). Strategies of employee participation in workplaces should there fore be encouraged. Progressive organisations employ collegiality as a model to enhance organisational performence. Involvement of employees in decision making encourages employee participation which in turn translates to improved employee performance due to motivation, improved productivity due to value analysis and value engineering approaches which encourages consultations and a positive workplace culture due to information sharing emphasis on healthy employee relations. As a maxim collegiality was used by the Roman Catholic charged to segregate responsibilities and avoid authoritarianism and improve productivity among faculties. In its initial practice the Roman Republic required having at least two people or an even number of people manning certain positions. The rationale was to provide check and balances within the system and avoids authoritarianism in those structures. Thus the advantage of collegiality presents itself as the disadvantages of authoritarianism or kingship authority (McDunnigan, 2011). The same is true in the running of governments. Democracy shares the same principles with the model of collegialism, particularly, decision making and encouraging the participation of individuals to contribute in running the affairs of the system. If authoritarianism is abused, the rights and freedoms of individuals may be violated. The restrictions breed dissent and opposition to a particular system (Gerring, et al., 2005). Further abuse by the authorities led to lack of accountability, misuse of resources and other corrupt activities. Such malaise leads to total system collapse. Aristotle was of the view that authoritarianism was a perversion to good governance (Rose, 2004). In this case it can also be said that collegiality is a vital aspect to good governance in an institution as it encourages, the participation of an individual in group i.e. for an individual to participate in governance, firstly he must understand his role, and secondly he must work in harmony with other members of the team. Collegiality also encourages the achievement of organizational purpose, which is also a key factor in governance. Other factors of governance which borrows the principles of collegiality include: integrity, control and accountability. Integrity of a system is sustained since each team members provide checks and balances for the other member and that nothing proceeds until a consensus is achieved. This eliminates arbitrary decisions. Accountability is enhanced since each individual is accountable to one another as teammates and the team is accountable to the organization (Torres & Mitchel, 1998). It has been argued that collegiality fosters a culture of continuous improvement due to the aspect of risk sharing. Risk sharing usually encourages innovation and continuous improvements through such processes like, brainstorming, value analysis and value engineering. If the model is used among people in the same profession e.g. teachers, it is said to leads to professional growth. Since collegiality encourages working together, unique experiences and expertise is shared thus sharpening the skills and knowledge of an individual within a group. As a novel approach to school management and administration, Lieberman & Miller (1984), noted that collegiality is an effective model to implement externally imposed change within an organization. As observed by Professor Laws, E in his paper on advantages of collegiality, the coming together of people with a common objective to do a noble this is professional in itself. He asserts that the collective pursuit of intellectual values with the aim of achieving a noble end is in itself being professional (Laws, 2010). Collegiality involves sharing and developing knowledge to help the society be a better place as opposed to serving political, commercial, financial and individual interest. It can be argued then that collegiality encourages professionalism and professional development through knowledge enhancement and harnessing. Thus collegiality as a practice should be encouraged within professional communities to enhance professionalism (Hardy, 1996). A collegial environment encourages improvement of existing ideas. Collegiality allows different people from different backgrounds to work together. The different people present diversity in perspectives (Torres & Mitchel, 1998). Within an organization collegiality allows these perspectives to merge and improve existing systems. The development of hybrid systems all owe it to collegiate arrangements within organizations. Collegiality is at the centre of value analysis and value engineering (Kenway, 1999). In political science it has been argued that the principles of collegiality build durable and enduring institutions. Principles of consensus building, individual rights, freedom of space etc. are manifestations of a collegial system especially in a democratic arrangement (Gerring, et al., 2005). Disadvantages of collegial systems Collegial systems also have their disadvantages which need to be pointed out. In management, a collegial system presents challenges especially to a manager (Westley, 1990). A disadvantage of the collegial system is the difficulty in making tough decisions like firing and disciplining employees by a manager. Such managers find themselves in a dilemma in making these tough decisions based on the fact that they have developed cordial relations with their subordinates. The cordial; relationship in this case works against him, in most cases such decisions will be subjective as opposed to objective (McDunnigan, 2011). However, another school of thought might argue that the collegiality will ensure that the members of the team pull together therefore such incidences are almost absent. The pulling together as a team sharpens both the individual and the team. At the same time collegiality might breed contempt in a work place. If the subordinates are too close a distance to the manager, they can know his weaknesses and in the end undermine him. For respect to prevail there has to be an objective distance between the manager and the subordinates. The objective distance allows the manager to exercise his authority in an objective manner. It is a fact that familiarity breeds contempt, so there is need for the manager to describe some sort of distance to cushion him from subjectivity brought about by being too close with his subordinates. This will also help his image in the organization. It has also been argued that if a manager becomes too collegial with his subordinates he will dilute his authority. The XY theory of management will agree that for the employees who exhibit the X characteristics need to be pushed to perform or do the right thing. Thus if an organization has too many of the X’s, then collegial arrangements will not succeed. Max Webber was of the view that collegiality perpetuates specialization. He considered collegiality as a forum where highly specialized groups came together to perpetuate their own interest and status in the society. It is however important to note his observations that not all collegiate arrangements can serve good to the society. A group of people can come together to wield power that should have been vested or be used in the advancement of society’s good. Over the years we have seen entities coming together to perpetuate economic crimes against the masses. However it is important to acknowledge Professor Laws’ view that such collegiality should be for the sole aim of a noble objective (Laws, 2010). Thus such commercially, politically and financial advancements cannot be termed as collegiate. But it important to acknowledges Webbers view because some collegiate might masquerade as being noble but yet evil in its manifestations (Webber, 1978). Max Webber was also of the view that collegiality is a vehicle of the autocrats to prevent the specialists and professionals from challenging absolute power. According to him professionals should act independently in the society outside the influence of politics and autocratic tendencies. If the specialists are mixed with the generalists they tend to disappear in the crowd. In a way, Webber’s view tends to favor specialization to collegiality which is somehow generalist in its manifestation. We can also allude that if we follow collegiality almost all the time then we are foregoing the advantages brought about by specialization (Webber, 1978). It is understood that the purpose of organization behavior is analyse the relationships of individuals in achieving the human, organizational, and social objectives within the context of an organization. Collegiality as an operating model can also encourage status competition and other egocentric values within a team. Such tendencies kill the morale of a team. If a team is composed of specialists and generalists, it is more likely that the specialists will seek lateral control in the group. It is a fact that the specialists occupy the highest echelons of in the society’s status ladder; they are also likely to undermine the generalists if they are put together. This observation is true in churches, institutions of learning, scientific laboratories, project teams etc. Therefore when you are building collegial teams this factor need considered for the success of the project (Robbins, 2004). It has also been argued that collegial systems are difficulties to implement owing to the complexities that arise in human relationships. Collegial systems don’t usually follow defined structures like the bureaucratic systems which make it more difficult to allocate power, responsibilities and duties. Conclusion It is clear that collegiality in organisational beahvior is not new as it has been practised as early as man’s era of hunting and gathering. It is also clear that its application in organisation management presents more advantages than disadvantages (McDunnigan, 2011). Collegiality has benefited many organisations as it has led to improved decision making, continous improvement, fostering good employee relationships, encouraged empowerment of the individual and the organisation as a whole, it leads to an innovative culture, it improves knowledge and expertise, sharpening of ideas within and without disciplines, encuorages practical solutions through etc. Glossary of Terms  Collegiality: the cooperative relationship of colleagues Connotation: something that is suggested by a word Colleagues: people with diverse abilities working together respectfully towards a common noble purpose Professionalism: the conduct, the aims, or the qualities that mark a profession Interdisciplinary: that which involves two or more scientific, academic, or artistic disciplines References Davis, K. (1967). Human relations at work: The dynamics of organizational behavior. 9th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Gerring, J., Thacker, S. & Moreno, C. (2005), ‘Centripetal Democratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 99 No. 4, pp. 567-581 Hardy, Cynthia. (1996). The Politics of Collegiality: Retrenchment Strategies in Canadian Universities. Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press. Kenway (1999) New Approaches to Teacher Professional Development in Devolved Environments. Report, Deakin University Laws Edward R., (2010), The George Washington University Medical Center Washington, D. C. Retrieved on November 13, 2011 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810159/pdf/bullnyacadmed00003-0133.pdf. Lieberman A. & Miller L. (1984). Teachers, their world, and their work: implications for school improvement. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development McDunnigan M. (2011). The Disadvantages of Collegial Management. Retrieved November 13, 2011 from http://www.ehow.com/info_8502535_disadvantages-collegial-management.html. Robbins, S. P. (2004). Organizational Behavior - Concepts, Controversies, Applications. 4th Ed. Prentice Hall Rose, J.A. (2004), Maintaining Collegiality and Accountability among Partners, http://www.joelarose.com/articles/collegiality.html. Torres, C & Mitchel, T ed. (1998). Sociology of Education: emerging perspectives: New York: Suny Press Waters, M. (1989), ‘Collegiality, bureaucratization and professionalization: a Weberian analysis’, American Journal of Sociology, 94(5), pp. 945-972. Webster (n.d). Collegiality. Retrieved on November 13, 2011, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collegiality?show=0&t=1321254057. Westley, F. R. (1990). Middle managers and strategy: Microdynamics of inclusion. Strategic Management J. 11(5) 337–351. Webber Max (1978). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology: Volume 2. University of California Pr Read More