Organization Theory
Organization Theory Perspectives: A Point of View William Huckabee OM8010 Organizational Theory Capella University April 30, 2009 Dr. Maudie Holm
1
Organization Theory
2
Organization Theory Perspectives: A Point of View Organizations can be an effective tool for organization goal accomplishment, minimizing conflict, and reducing organization-environment uncertainties (Scott, 1961). This suggests that organizations are among the most “complex systems imaginable” (Daft and Weick, 1984, p. 284). The same can be suggested for organization theory (OT); many organization theories and perspective exists for the evaluation and design of effective organizations (Tsoukas and Knudsen, 2003). However, this study concentrates on three perspectives of OT; the modernist, symbolic-interpretive, and the postmodern perspectives. What is presented in this study is to first, compare and contrast the three perspectives in terms of their underlying assumptions. Second, this study provides some possibilities on how these perspectives can assist practitioners in designing and managing organizations, and finally, provide recommendations on which perspective appears to provide the most utility. Modernist Perspective The modernist perspective began in the “enlightenment period” (Cooper and Burrell, 1988, p. 94). This perspective is rooted in early systems thinking and is characterized by uncertainty; meaning that researchers see this perspective as problems that are defined in terms of “certainty and uncertainty” (p. 95) 9 5) and in terms of “constraints and contrasting” (p. 95) choices. Furthermore, the assumptions of the modernist researcher that expressing organizations in measurable terms that the organization can be viewed and understood in a rational and logical fashion. Moreover, from the modernist point of view, organizations are “real and are composed of mutually dependent variables” (Scott, 1961, p. 16); meaning that modernists believe that what is being observed can be measured. Further, Chia (1995) suggests that modernists look at
Organization Theory
3
organizations in terms of causality. For instance, from this point of view, a researcher can determine why an organization’s structure changes based on some change in the firm’s environment. This suggests that the realness of an organization is the causal link between “social and material” (p. 585) clashes. Finally, Clegg (as cited in Hassard, 1994) suggests that the foundation of the modernist perspective lies in differentiation; differentiation; what he calls the “division of labor” (p. 308); it is in the organization where differentiation takes places. In fact, Hickson, Hinings, and Schneck (1971) agree and add that it is the division of labor that assists practitioners in dealing with uncertainty in their environment. Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective The symbolic-interpretive perspective is associated with two views; the “institutional theory and the enacted environment theory” (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006, p. 85), which the former is concerned with the structure of the organization and the later with the actions taken by actors within the organization based on some event in the actor’s environment. Here an actor can be described as an individual in an organization; this term and definition can be foun d throughout OT literature such as in Scott (1987). With institutional theory, it must be recognized early on that there are many variations of this view (Scott, 1987). Scott describes this view as a process of “instilling value” (p. 493); it is a process by which “individuals come to accept a shared definition of reality” (p. 496), and in this case, by which individuals accept a share share definition of an organization. Further, this view can be associated with actions or events such as the “interactions and symbols, symbolically mediated interactions, and relationships” (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006a), more or less the identification of “symbolic themes” (Smircich, 1983, p. 351).
Organization Theory
4
Scott (1987) suggests that there can be environmental agents that can impose certain characteristics of an organization’s structure, which he defines as “imposition by means of authority” (p. 501). Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) suggests that this is a form of “coercion” (P. 86). In this respect an organization imposes certain behaviors to deal with the imposition. For instance, a company in the Aerospace and Defense Industry adopts CMMI and ISO-9000 processes and procedures in reaction to Governmental directives that all defense contractors will will be compliant with these two quality requirements in order to obtain defense contracts. By developing a culture of quality, the organization is reacting to the changes in their environment, which requires a certain culture. Also, Smircich (1983) suggests that symbolic themes are those that inspire social activity within an organization. Going back to the previous example, symbolic themes of CMMI and ISO 9000 logos on the website and in other areas of the firm would help to codify quality in the actors within the organization, creating quality in the actors’ behaviors. Accordingly, these themes help actors become acclimated to the organization through the interpretation and creation of a sense of belonging to the organization. The other view, the enacted environment theory can be associated with “deciphering, forms of meaning, and construction of reality” (Martens, 2006, p. 84) such as how actors’ environmental observations produces certain actionable consequences in an organization (Weick, 1988). Further, Weick suggests that actors often create “structures, constraints, and opportunities” (p. 306) where none had existed before. Smircich and Stubbart (1985) agree. These authors suggest that an organization’s environment is created by the actions of the actors within an organization. Moreover, Smircich and Stubbart stipulates that the enacted environment is nothing more than an “ambiguous field of
Organization Theory
5
experience” (p. 726) offering an organization not threats nor opportunities, just “just material and symbolic records of action” (p. 726), thus, the actors create both the organization and an d the environment by connecting lines among “events, objects, and situations” (p. 726) as to bring meaning to hem and then distributing that meaning throughout the organization. Further, the concept of enacted environment requires imagination on the actor’s part because this theory is associated not with concrete measurable relationships relationships like that of the modern perspective. This theory “abandons” (Smircich and Stubbart, 1985, p. 727) real objects. It is more about refining the existing “definition of reality” (Abolafia and Kilduff, 1988, p. 180). As an example of this concept, an Aerospace and Defense company department was constantly under pressure to hire more subject matter experts to fill other p ositions by their counterparts on the customer’s team. The appearance was that the department had too many employees focusing on one area of the project versus spreading out the resources to other areas of the project. The misconception originated because the contractor’s department’s name was Organizational Change Management (OCM) whereas the customer’s department’s name is Life Cycle Logistics Division (LCLD), with a sub function of OCM where two e mployees performed the activities of the area, where as the contractor’s OCM department contained over 12 employees performing the activities within the department. This led to a tremendous amount of political shuffling between the customer and the contractor. Smircich and Stubbart (1985) suggest that this inferred that there was a poor quality interaction between the organization and the environment. As a result of the political shuffling, the contractor reorganized and re-designated the department as Life Cycle Logistics Support
Organization Theory
6
Division (LLSD) with a sub function of OCM with two employees performing the activities of the department. Postmodern Perspective The postmodern perspective is very difficult to define; there is n o one school that lends to the perspective (Parker, 1992). However, Hassard (1994) suggests that postmodernism is the “death of reason” (p. 303) and that the world as we see it is formless and fragmented, with no hidden order; what you see is what you get. Furthermore, Parker suggests that a postmodern organization is characterized as being “numerically and functionally flexible” (p. 4) with no clear power base or spatial location. The postmodern perspective then focuses on the “production of organization versus the organization of production” (Parker, P. 5). Hassard (1994) suggests that the goal of this perspective is to find the correct way to describe the “world out there” (p 305). 305 ). Moreover, postmodernist concentrate on “dismantling the modernist’s assumptions and practices” (Gergen and Thatchenkery, 2005, p. 234); with the underlying premise is that postmodernists consider modernist’s rationality as being flawed primarily because it can “guide and actor’s outward behavior” (p. 234). Further, postmodernist are skeptical of an organization’s “hierarchy, its centralization, control and integration” (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006, p. 131) because the issues are not real; they are just “words” (p. 131). With that said, Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) suggest that an organization is created by the tension created between “organization and disorganization” (p. 131), not by the actors within the organizations. Also the authors suggest that it is the observer that creates the organization in their attempt to describe the organization from the outside. However, on the one hand, Cooper and Burrell (as cited in Parker, 1992) suggests that organizations are power sites that we cannot step out of; we are all members because the organization is a product of our society. On the other
Organization Theory
7
hand, Derrida (as cited in Parker, 1992) 19 92) suggests that organizations and their environments do not really exist in reality; they appear in the form of “language” (p. 6). 6 ). Finally, we see that from a postmodern perspective organizations are born out of society and they are very subjective (Gergen and Thatchenkery, 2004). Discussion and Conclusions As seen above, the three perspectives offer different views or organizing, which provide researchers and practitioners a great deal of latitude in creating and evaluating organizations. However, one should realize that each of these perspectives offer different disputes of “reality” (Kreiner, 1992, p. 39). That being b eing said, we take a look at the three disputes of reality closer by comparing and contrasting each perspective. As described earlier, the modernist perspective’s view of organizing and organizations is about what is real; what can be measured. On the other hand, the symbolic-interpretive perspective’s view is about symbols and interpreting meaning of these symbols and how relationships are affected by this sensemaking. The postmodern perspective’s view is that there is no reality and that organization “bear “b ear little or no relation” (Parker, 1992, p.4) to the modernist; vision of organizing and organizations. Modernists believe that organizations are a product of the organization’s environment and that the organization and the environment are separate. Symbolic-interpretists believe that organizations are a product of the actor’s interpretation of the meaning found in their environment and that the organization and environment are one; not separate (Smircich and Stubbart, 1985, p. 727). Moreover, this allows employees to structure their behavior toward the behavior that is expected in the organization (Smircich, 1983).
Organization Theory
8
Modernists believe in “hierarchies of rationality” (Gergen and Thatchenkery, 2004, p. 235) within cultures, which are assigned based to actors based on education level and an d cultural backgrounds, among other criteria; modernists look at certain individuals are more worthy of “leadership, position, and wealth” (p. 235). Symbolic-interpretists view view this as a “communal” (p. 235) achievement which is a form of “communal participation” (p. 235). Postmodernists would view these criteria as representational and would “stress on the collectivity” (Parker, 1992, p. 7) of these representations. As evidenced by the comparisons above, many differences exist between the underlying assumptions of these perspectives; no compatibility exists among them. This has important implications in determining how to organize and create effective organizational structures. With that said, the modernist perspective, specifically, the contingency theory ha s great utility in today’s economic environment fraught with change, especially from a strategic management perspective. For example, the contingency theory can be applied in strategic planning; for a certain set of organization-environment conditions, and optimal strategy exists. This mirrors the fact that like a strategy, there is optimal organizational structures that exists based on some reactions between the organization and it environment (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985). For instance, environmental forces affect every organization; these forces can originate from either internal or external to the organization (Zucker, 1987). And the contingency theory suggests that organizations tend to match their resources to the “environmental context” (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985, p. 421). As the first example suggested above, external forces can significantly impact the organization’s internal operations. Modifications to the organization’s structure must be made to be better competitive (Zucker). On the other hand, if
Organization Theory
9
the firm does not adapt to the environmental forces, failure rather than success would be the result (Prescott, 1986). Further, Prescott (1986) suggests that an organization’s environment has a significant impact on a firm’s performance, and from a strategist’s perspective, the environment is a “primary” (P. 329) in the organization’s success. Here, because the modernist perspective is an ideal perspective to use when measuring organizational o rganizational performance against environmental factors using the contingency theory. For instance, Downey and Slocum (1975) suggest that “long-range trends, regardless of the inherit changes within them, may be highly predictable” (p. 565) to an organization Dalton, Todor, Spendolini, et.al (1980) agree, and add that performance can be measured in various ways using “hard performance criteria” (p. 50), such as “sales, production, and services rendered” (p. 50), which all originate in the firm’s environment. The role of contingency then is to identify the “key interactions” (p. 50) in the environment and then link them to the organization’s performance. Furthermore, According to Ginsberg and Venkatraman (1985) when using the contingency theory much like that as describes by Hatch and Cunliffe (2006), the level of organizational performance also dictates the range of strategies that available to an organization. Although strategy can be considered to be a set of responses that an organization tends to choose as a direction directs a certain organizational “structure, management systems, and the choice of top management” (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985, p. 423). Finally, these three perspectives are much different in their d efinitions of reality. One perspective suggests reality, realness, what can be measured. One looks that the symbols and how actors sense those symbols and apply meaning within the context in organization. The other
Organization Theory
10
perspective disagrees with everything that the modernist’s believe in; the world world is formless and fragmented, with no hidden order; what you see is what you get. When looking at these perspectives, one rings out as having utility with practitioners practitioners today, especially for strategists, which is the contingency theory. This theory will help planners choose the co rrect organizationenvironmental contexts with which to concentrate organizational resources on for future performance.
Organization Theory
11
References Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. Organization Studies 6 (4), (4), 579-604. Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism, and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organizational Studies, 9(1), 9(1), 91-112. Daft, R.L., & Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 9(2), 284-295. Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., Spendolini, M. J., & Fielding, G. J., et.al. (1980). Organization structure and performance: A critical review. Academy review. Academy of Mangement, 5,(000001), 5,(000001), 49-64. Downey, H. K., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Uncertainty: Measures, research, and sources of variation. Academy variation. Academy of Management Journal, 18(000003), 18(000003), 562-578. Hassard, J. (1994). Postmodern organizational analysis: Toward a conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 31(3), 303-324. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). (2006 ). Organizational theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Hatch, M. J., & Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006a). (2006 a). Three perspectives of organizational theory. theory. Retrieved April 18, 2009 from Capella University, http://courseroom2.capella.edu/webct/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct? appforward=/webct/startFrameSet.dowebct%3Fforward=manageCourse.dowebct %26lcid=5726127570111
Organization Theory
12
Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings. (Jun., 1971). A strategic contingencies’ theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 (2), (2), 216-229. Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. (2004). Organization science as social construction: Postmodern potentials. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2), 40(2), 228-249. Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: A critical review of the empirical research. Academy research. Academy of Management, 10(000003), 10(000003), 421-433. Parker, M. (1992). Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory? Organization Studies, 13(1), 13(1), 1-17. Prescott, J. E. (1986). Environments as moderators of the relationship between strategy and performance. Academy performance. Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 29(2), 329-346. Scott, W. G. (1961). Organization theory: An overview and an appraisal. The Journal of the Academy of Management, 4(1), 4(1), 7-26. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of Institutional Theory. Administrative Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 32(4), 493-511. Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative analysis. Administrative Science, Quarterly, 28, 28, 339-358. Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy world. Academy of Management, 10(00004), 10(00004), 724-736.
Organization Theory
13
Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (Eds.). (2003). The oxford handbook of organizational theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives. perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. Journal situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 25(4), 305-317. Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institution theories of organization. Annual organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443464.
