Organizational Perspectives - Literature review Example

INTRODUCTION This project entails to analytically review some past research works on the topic pertaining to the three common organizational perspectives such as Modernism, Symbolic Interpretive or Interpretivism and Post modernism. These perspectives have long contributed to the operation of various organizations and their subsequent success or failure. In this review an attempt has been made to collect, collate, evaluate and analyze the ideas represented across various genres or work over a period of time. Certain initial researches on this area of interest have been discussed as seminal work and the more recent literatures have been utilized to develop a contrast and comparison of the evolution of the understanding on the topic over time. The philosophical indentation as well as the methodological approaches of the various works cited here have been attempted an analysis with. Also, an examination of the validity (external as well as internal) of the works discussed here has been made. The literature review progresses with the discussion on the strengths and limitations of the methodological and philosophical approaches and their implication on future research, practice or theory followed by certain recommendations towards future research on the topic. Finally a conclusive description of the leaning insight obtained throughout the preparation and presentation of this analytic literature review along with a re-statement of the theoretical underpinning and research implications behind taking up this study. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Gibson (1988) in his organizational analysis has explained the initial contribution of Michael Foucault towards the impact of post modernism on organizational analysis. Foucault presented a passionate criticism of modernism which has been contested by several researches over and again. His works had a strong representation of philosophical idealism. The basic ideology behind this study is that discipline is concerned with the slightest of details of the lives of those connected to it, irrespective of the organization. The methodological approaches in the study by Gibson (1988) are represented as archaeological theory, genealogy and ethical considerations. The study of the behavior of the population so as to measure the development and impact of bio power (which is characteristic of organizations and can be generalized to social setting also) was normalized as the individuals in the study were seen as a part of homogeneous social body. This strengthened the generalizability of the above study and thus its external validity. According to the study, the plurality of powers within the contemporary societies’ organizations is encapsulated within the bureaucratic, military and administrative frameworks. The study emphasizes that discipline is reflected even in the slightest of activity within a homogeneous collective of organizational forms. Cooper (1989) undertakes a study on the process analysis in social setups as opposed to the structure study by Gibson (1988). He explores the social and organizational analysis related to deconstruction, writing and difference. Writing has been considered to be fundamental to division of labor and therefore significant to the dimensions of formal organizations. Writing evolves into organizational theories and therefore essentially need to explain and justify the structures represented by them. Tsoukas (1992) undertakes the study of the influence of post modernism on organizational studies. This is a critical analysis of the association between modern and post modern view of organizations empirically. These two have been identified to be the two extremes of a continuum with the modernism being an Anglo-Saxon context and post modernism being a South-East Asian and technologically advanced western organizations. The study explores whether post modern constitutes a qualitative break from modernity or whether it is a new version of historical modernism. Buskirk & McGrath (1993) studies the interpretive impact of cultural sensitivity among individuals in an organization emphasizing the subjective, symbolic and interactional aspect more than the behavioral one through the laboratory analysis of T-groups. This is essential because it is largely observed while individuals succeed in interacting within a group; they are unable to cope up with the complexities of local organizational cultures, sometimes hostile to the values of the group. The interpretive analysis seeking to make insightful observations towards organization’s members meaning and interpretations has been articulately studied by Gephart (1997). In the organizational context, the practices relevant to the risks and hazards during crises situations are to be studied which are what the fundamental behind this research study. This study ideally presents a contrast between quantitative content analysis and qualitative textual analysis. Also studied here are the variations in sense making of different stakeholders in an organization and their implications. RECENT PARADIGM AND A COMPARISON WITH HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Chan (2000) in a very similar study as that of Gibson (1988) has studied the Foucault theory, however, the study now is also keeping the Kant’s theory of postmodernism in organizational analysis in the loop. It hence is a representation of more advance study which introduces the concept of reflexes, change, difference and creative self characterization in organizations. The study is a fine blend of Foucault’s Genealogy and Kant’s investigation of true self. The emphasis is on the balance needed to be created between modernity (reflection of the present) and a critical analysis (Genealogical critique) of the organizational practices which eliminates subjectivity and resists internal conditions limiting individual autonomy. The above study hence is unique and different from its historical counterparts in the way it has produced a comparison of subjugation and subjectivation. Ortenblad (2002) study lays emphasis on the shift of organizational learning from a functionalistic paradigm to an interpretive one. This study is distinct from the majority of past studies in its treatment of the context neither in anti nor in purely critical grounds but a very radical and novel approach. The study focuses on the panorama that interpretive paradigm understands the world as it is, but from the subjectivist point of view while a radical structuralist paradigm like the functionalist paradigm, has an objectivistic assumption of the social science. It highlights that although the concept of the learning organization is mostly functionalistic, there is also a social (interpretive) perspective of organizational learning theory. The functional perspective is based on reality where individuals learn as agents of organizations while interpretive perspective indicates the reality is no longer objective. As already established above that the interpretive perspective is behaviorally inclined, the study by Belk (2005) discusses the interpretive paradigm in relation to revealing the moral template and behavior leading to formation of behaviors such as exchange of gifts. In organizational context, this study is distinct from several previous works in the sense that it studies from a consumer psychology perspective. However, in contrast to the merging of the meaning of behavioral and interpretive perspective, Chisalita (2006) provides a distinction between behavioral aspect and the interpretive aspect (emergences of meanings) in organizational setting with a special reference to technology. The structuration theory discussed here is the basis of the study. It considers that social structures do not limit human actions, rather they enable the same. Therefore, the structuration theory presented here re-iterate the relatedness of social structure and individual human actions, especially pertinent to organizational setups. Figure 2 shows this relation between the two aspects of interface between social structure and human action within an organization. Figure 2: Duality of Structure Arias (2008) describes the Interpretive systemology in the context of understanding the Corporate Social Responsibility. As opposed to the functionalist standpoint of previous understanding of organizational phenomenon, this study focuses on building up the organization as a set of rational choices and procedures orientated to enable actions and purposes of a given set of individuals in society. In an Interpretive-Systemic theory of organization, these levels of influence allow the defining of relationships with social sectors upon which organization effects. PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES The methodological approaches in the study by Gibson (1988) are represented as archaeological theory, genealogy and ethical considerations. Michael Foucault’s work had two major analytic approaches namely Archeological and Genealogical method. These methods especially establish the anti modernist outlook of the author. The major strengths of these two approaches are that these uncover the rules which regulate and govern social practices, even unknown to those involved with it. They enable the partial distancing from institutional bonds through embracing accepted truth. However, the limitation of genealogy being recording singularity of surface details and seeks superficial details opposing search for depth or interiority, whereas archaeology enhances interiority and reveals depth. One of the key strengths of the study depiction of Gibson (1988) is the elaboration on empirical depicts by Foucault and suggest the similarities of all organizations and thus the external validity of the study findings. The limitation of the above being the reduction of human’s individuality (and the variety of personalities) to case notes and fundamentally hierarchical classification. The study by Cooper (1989) represents inherent consistency and stability subject to their essential function to justify the structures represented by them and hence validates the research internally. The approaches used to explain the bureaucracy pattern of organizations in this study are formalist and expertise models. The similarity of this study and that of Gibson (1988) is the realization that writing and socio technical division of labor are implicated within each other referred to as knowledge-power in the Foucault’s study by Gibson. Tsoukas (1992) adopts a two way approach, the first being an empirical along with theoretical description of post modern organizations at theoretical level and the other being a Meta theoretical and post modern perspective of analyzing organizations. The study explains the shortcomings of Martin Parker in explaining the basic premise of a post modern subject and an incomplete, ineffective definition of modernism. Buskirk & McGrath (1993) attempted to carry out a focused T-group lab analysis by changing the conditions with the retrospective experiences as frames of reference for planned change efforts. The attempt to change an organization’s interpretive system has been labeled here as ‘second order change’. Gephart’s (1997) study of interpretive analysis constitutes qualitative research approach, using four analytical processes namely, theoretical sampling, computer supported text analysis, expansion analysis and producing textual statistics. The analysis used in this study is highly dependent on the researcher’s interpretations, understanding, personal inclinations and conceptual creativity. Thus, the analysis and the findings of the study need to be thoroughly checked for internal validity. The methodology presented in this paper effectively contributes to interpretive approaches to computer-supported qualitative data analysis. Also, the use of expansion analyses of selected textual segments in textual exhibits incorporates fine grained analysis in the current approach. Chan (2000) indicates that the study has subject-centered reasoning and has used normalizing approach and a critical comparative study of past and present paradigms in postmodernism discourse. The strength of the study lies in the elaborations of key notions of power, freedom and resistance resulting in a value free ethical showing. The study of Ortenblad (2002) uses a very radical approach to interpretation of organizational themes which have been inspired by the matrix in Figure 1. It discusses two main approaches to organization leaning – Functionalistic and Interpretive which span across four realms or paradigms constituted by the two dimensions namely, horizontal (objectivist or subjectivist); and vertical (nature of society as changing or rule bound). The study has used a variety of research findings and suggestions into consideration while making its point which makes it internally valid and sound. Figure 1: Burrell and Morgan’s four paradigms The methodological approach of study by Belk (2005) integrates relational framing theory with the concepts from interpretive literatures. This study shares a common interest in overcoming narrow assumptions of utility maximization, universal money, and narrow self-interest which otherwise is differently dealt with by interpretive and experimental researchers who choose different methods for studying exchange taboos. The internal validity of this study stems from pluralism in reading both sets of literature for instance interpretive approaches (which offers a deeper understanding of the antecedents of exchange taboos) and Relational framing (which results from an idealized model of human relations). The study undertaken by Chisalita (2006) is a practice oriented approach, to technology and organizational discussions and introduces the Structuration Theory. The influence of external environment on the use of technology in organizations was used in this study to account for this influence through a study of the combination of structuration theory and other institutional theories. The research has external validity as its findings has relevance for organizational discourse area in at least two aspects: managers’ attitude in relation to the use of technology and technology as a carrier for intra- and inter-organizational symbolic communication. Arias (2008) has explored the issue of CSR from two possible social meaning of organization following the historical path of a systemic thinking: Interpretive Systemology. LEARNING INSIGHTS Through this literature review, the heterogeneity and homogeneity of organizational forms related to organization theory can well be established including an emphasis on the extent to which generalization can be made about organizations. It therefore can be concluded that it is unnecessary to search for few essential attributes captured in the all encompassing definition of organization. The importance of the study undertaken by Buskirk & McGrath (1993) lies at building such capacities through change agents for instance managers throughout the organization who are capable of understanding and appreciating the symbolic frameworks which shape perceptions and influence decision-making. This study highlights the movement in change theory from behavioral to cognitive symbolic or interpretive orientation indicating the need for training approaches to equip the participants with the understanding of the inter associations of culture and symbol. In Gephart (1997), we have learned about sense making in an organization and its relevance as an activity or process of generating a social world. Sense making is fundamental to organizational behavior as it creates and constitutes the organization and its structure in the form of a set of supposedly shared meaning. Researches on sense making in organizations have often been directed at the interpretation of unusual events which disrupt sense making and is consequential for organizational actions. The study by Chan (2000) effectively portrays the need to enter into a dual and reciprocal activity of shaping one’s own subjectivity and challenging well set subjectivities. No intervention would otherwise lead to immaturity among the free subjects such as managers, workers, theorists etc in organizations. The genealogical reflection illustrated in the study thus not an aimless concept but a resultant of vigilant questioning. Organizations should free its employees from structure and ideas instead should be encouraged to gain control of their own learning or knowledge (Ortenblad, 2002). It has been long argued that a free and open form of political activity gives people the freedom to voice their opinions. This contributes to learning by all individuals and the collectives to which they belong. Thus, a radical perspective of organizational learning would imply a climate where different points of view and opinions – including the criticism of the management are encouraged. IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The study and analysis of the three major organizational perspectives through wide ranging scholarly texts highlight an essential feature of all these studies. These indicate that the studies undertaken had focused only on either post modernism or modernism or otherwise on symbolic interpretive paradigm on a standalone basis. Also, the interpretive paradigm is relatively lowly researched owing to its qualitative nature and social, behavioral implications as opposed to functional implications of modernism and post modernism perspective. However, it will be of a significant consequence to have an integrated comparative study of all the three perspective under one study which may combine both the functional as well as behavioral aspect. Also discussed earlier in this paper is a close relation between interpretive discourse and relational framing perspective which emphasizes that both approaches point toward convergence on a number of fundamental points. A more complete integration of these literatures is a promising and much needed avenue for further work. One of the path breaking discourses on the radical perspectives of organizational learning if implemented can bring in revolutionary changes within an organization. Also, further research on the individual entities within an organization apart from the mere study of the perspectives of organizational theory can aid the research better in terms of its practical utility. Read More