Preview of Organizational Strategies

 

Preview: Means of Influence in an Organization

The Fundamental Character of Organization

The Contradiction of Organizational Theory

 

A.    Preview: Means of Influence in an Organization

1.     If an organization is a strategic communication, the manager must make use of the means of influence within the organization to achieve an objective just as a speaker makes use of the means of persuasion to influence an audience.

2.     Organizations, obviously, are different instruments of influence than a presentation or a memo. Organizations differ from other social groups by their: (Bernard Berelson and Gary Steiner, Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1964), p. 364.)

a.      formality The typical organization has a set of goals, policies, procedures, and regulations that give it form.

b.     hierarchy  typically expressed in terms of pyramidal structure.

c.      more impersonal  many people, “enough so that close personal relations among all are impossible.”

d.     long lasting Organizations usually last longer than a human lifetime.

3.     Therefore, the available means of influence at the organizational level are dictated in part by the assumptions that define the organization.

B.    The Fundamental Character of Organizations

1.     The most basic function of an organization: To accomplish more than individuals could on their own.

a.      “Organizations consist of two or more people involved in a cooperative relationship, which implies that they have collective goals. The members of the organization differ in terms of function, and they maintain a stable hierarchical structure. Strother also recognizes that the organization exists within an environment or milieu.” George B. Strother, “Problems in the Development of a Social Science of Organization,” in The Social Science of Organizations: Four Perspectives, ed. H. J. Leavitt (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 23.)

b.     As a result, the organization is generally pitted against the individual in theory and practice—at least some theories.

2.     Three concepts central to organizations, according to C & P (Notice that self-interest is considered to be the principal motivation):

a.      Employees have their own goals, desires, and incentives and, all other things being equal, they will act in ways that are consistent with what they perceive is in their self-interest;

b.     In order to have adequate levels of control, organizations must be able to make workers be accountable for both the quantity and quality of their output

c.      Supervisors must be able to obtain accurate information about the activities of their subordinates.

3.     All organizational strategies attempt to address the tension between the needs of the workers and the needs of the company, often with radically different assumptions.

C.    The Contradiction of Organizational Theories

1.     Pepper’s World Hypotheses: Different metaphors for the world create different perspectives on:

a.      The nature of human beings

b.     The nature of the organization

c.      The role of the manager

d.     The nature of human relationships

2.     Various schemes characterize these distinctions in different ways

a.      McGregor’s X and Y

b.     Petzinger’s Mechanical vs. Organic

3.     Fundamentally, these contradictory theories create what M & W call the “Contradictory Corporation”

a.      M & W do not see an even trajectory from one organizational theory to another, but rather a movement back-and-forth with both at work in the same organization, often at cross purposes. This is the “Contradictory Corporation.” The “velocity of fads—and their ability to contradict one another—has increased considerably” in the last 20 years.

      According to M & W, management theory has 4 problems: "Management theory, according to the case against it, has four defects: it is constitutionally incapable of self-criticism; its terminology usually confuses rather than educates; it rarely rises above basic common sense; and it is faddish and bedeviled by contradictions that would not be allowed in more rigorous disciplines."

b.     These contradictions have negative consequences, according to M & W:

i.       Managers feel anxiety about keeping up with the latest fads.

1.)   “One consequence of these contradictions is to reinforce anxiety, from the boardroom down. Business Week quoted one American manager delivering his verdict on management fashion: “Last year it was quality circles . . . this year it will be zero inventories. The truth is, one more fad and we will all go nuts.”

ii.     Managers talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.

1.)   “Managers have learned how to pay lip service to theories without really understanding them, let alone bothering to implement them. Many managers are rather like the Soviet bureaucrats of old, living in a dual world: the real world and the world of officially sanctioned ideology. Thus they talk about ‘empowerment’ but habitually hoard power, or proclaim that they are ‘reengineering’ their organizations when they are really just firing a few of the more lackluster workers.”

iii.   Managers don’t know what they’re talking about. Their words have no meaning. See Orwell.

iv.   As the language of management spreads through the general culture, the confusion spreads.

1.)   “This doublespeak matters because management theory is the language of the international elite. An increasing number of people who rule companies and countries speak in its terms. For the young and ambitious, a business school education is looking more and more like a necessity (and a spell at a consulting firm more of a probability). Eavesdrop in the business-class lounge of any airport from Shanghai to San Francisco and you will hear a familiar vernacular. In politics, the old battles between left and right no longer seem to matter. There is no ideological gulf between the Clintonites and Doleites. Instead, the battleground has become one of managerial efficiency: who will ‘manage’ the economy, who will ‘restructure’ government, who has the necessary ‘leadership skills,’ and so on. If this debate is carried out in terms that are contradictory or empty, then everyone suffers.

4.     Because of these contradictions, managers must understand the nature of the theories that fly past them and must choose the most appropriate means of influence for their situation from among all the alternatives presented to them in a confusing array of contradictions.