Organisation Theory and Paradigms - Essay Example

Organisation Theory and Paradigms INTRODUCTION Hassard in 1991 described the multiple paradigms in the theories about how society and organizations work. It is the paradigms which was developed in 1979 by Burrell and Morgan which has gained the greatest amount of attention. This I will attempt to link with a problem in my place of work. In this way I can perhaps arrive at the correct knowledge necessary to solve the problem. The evidence put forward by Burrell and Morgan (1979) can be backed by the ideas of other writers. Hassard (1991) mentions Louis (1983) Morgan (1990), and White ( 1993). Burrell and Morgan identify four paradigms in the theory of the science of sociology which can be used to analyse organisation. These use debates where subject and object intersect with consensus-conflict ideas. The four paradigms arrived at by Burrell and Morgan are functionalist, i.e. that function determines both design and choice of materials; interpretive or explanatory; radical humanist, which is to do with removing the constraints which have the effect of placing limits on mankind’s potential; and fourthly the radical structuralist, which is to do with the conflicts in society that lead to changes. In this essay there will be a discussion of the four assumptions behind these terms. We will not go into details on the paradigms in my discussion here, but we will discuss the four sets of assumptions.   Burrell and Morgan (1979) state that in order to analyse social science it is necessary to form concepts of ‘four sets of assumptions related to ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology’. The authors further suggest that social scientists, whether explicitly or implicitly, use particular assumptions about the make up of society and the methods that should be used in order to research it. Such people have fixed ideas with regard to ‘the very essence of the phenomena under study’ ( its ontology), ‘the grounds of knowledge’ ( its epistemology), ‘the relationships between human beings’ and the methods to be used - ‘the way in which one attempts to investigate and obtain “knowledge”).   PARADIGM With regard to organisational theory, in 1980 Morgan discussed paradigms and stated that, in philosophical or metatheoretical terms it signifies a particular view of reality , whether explicit or explicit. An understanding of this, as well as my knowledge of my company, will enable the creation of the knowledge necessary to solve the problem. It is further argued that any analysis of the role of paradigms in social theory must uncover the core assumptions that characterize and define any given world view, to make it possible to grasp what is common to the perspectives of theorists whose work may otherwise, at a more superficial level appear diverse and wide ranging.   Morgan (1980) discussed metaphors and the solving of puzzles as well as the use of paradigms. Tools such as these can enable me to better be able to solve the work place problem. The use of metaphors has its basis in using particular texts and tools. The solving of puzzles means that many possibilities can be identified. They serve to use metaphors in detail in order to define how particular schools of thought operate. The various possibilities arrived at by using specific texts, tools for research and various models are important as they open up many more ways to assist me in solving the particular problem concerned.   Willmott (1993) discussed, the influence paradigms can have and their importance. He does not deny possible virtues. However he does point out as a major point of his paper, that paradigms can also have negative implications. The argument under discussion is to do with paradigms being ‘objectivist’ or else ‘subjectivist’. Willmott (1993) uses evidence taken by from Burrell and Morgan (1979). He says that it is necessary that organizations recognize and analyze phenomena within their company in ways which can be considered as being ‘a hard, external, objective reality’ or on the other hand, that they value ‘the importance of the subjective experience of individuals in the creation of the world’.   Jackson and Carter (1991) put forward the argument with regard to Burrell and Morgan (1979) which ‘were quite specific that a synthesis between paradigms cannot be achieved, that they must remain discrete and develop independently’. Willmott in 1993 states that Jackson and Carter (1991) were quite specific about how clearly this was stated. According to Willmott (1993) the concept of paradigms means that assumptions are made which endorse restricting analysis within the limits of four views which are ‘mutually exclusive’. Knowledge creation and acquisition can be considered as being an art as well as a science. As already mentioned thinking in ways which are purely subjective or objective is no longer valid. Cunliffe, ( 2010) claims that craft can include ways of interpreting phenomena , whereas science will reflect upon positivism. I believe therefore that the creation of knowledge can rather be a craft than considered purely as a science. It is not as simple as adding one and one and arriving always at the sum of 2. It rather depends upon the creativity used and the understanding of what is required, and so is mainly a craft, but there is also a degree of science involved.     SUMMARY When Donaldson’s arguments of 2005 are considered it is possible to discuss. We can see organisational views within KFIC from a positivist point of view as well as a functionalist one. This is true because organisations such as this come into being and are maintained in the first instance because of the benefits involved. The larger organization enables tasks to be successfully achieved which would be difficult or impossible for an individual and this is true for KFIC. In the same way organizations have a structure that enables the coordination of work undertaken so that given tasks can be accomplished. Managers are under various pressures from competitors, stock holders owners, etc to continually increase and improve the way in which their organization performs. As a manager myself I can relate this to the pressures I find myself under at the present time Higher performance levels will result from fitting appropriate structures to the contingencies of such things as sizes, strategies used , innovations and uncertainties. Successful managers and their organisations try their best to act in a rational way , by choosing methods structures that fit the particular contingencies with which they are involved. The choices they make are driven by the actual contingencies. Thus it seems that it is the changes to contingencies which drives alterations within structures. This means that the functionality of organisations is less than perfect, which leaves plenty of scope for improvement through better communication of knowledge to managers using both superior methods of research and better education.   REFERENCES  CUNLIFFE, A.,. (2010) Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on, Organizational Research Methods, DOI: 10.1177  DONALDSON,L. (2005), Following the Scientific Method: How I Became a Committed Functionalist and Positivist, Organization Studies, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 071–1088   HASSARD,J.Hassard, John (1991), Multiple Paradigms and Organizational Analysis: A Case Study, Organization Studies, Vol 12, No. 2, pp. 275-299 JACKSON, N and CARTER,P. (1991) In Defense of Paradigm Incommensurability, Organizational Studies, 12(1) pages 109 – 127,   WILLMOTT, H. (1993), Breaking the Paradigm Mentality, Organization Studies, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 681-719 Read More