Showing posts with label Behaviour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Behaviour. Show all posts

Friday, May 22, 2020

HIERARCHIES, CLANS AND THEORY Z

Ouchi, W. G., Price, R. L. (1978), Hierarchies, Clans, Theory Z : A new perspective on organizational development, Organizational Dynamics, AMACOM, 25-43

The research paper starts with the introduction of bureaucratic hierarchies which is defined as the use of legitimate authority in which employees grant their superiors the rights to tell them what to do which is not as indispensable to industrialized settings as is commonly assumed. Secondly, organizational development (OD) has been discussed. In fact, the industrialized organizations share many of the properties of the organizations described by Elton Mayo, Chris Argyris, Douglas Mc-Gregor and Rensis Likert, the founding fathers of humanistic organizational development.

The OD programs rely on small group techniques especially T-training and team building. OD is people and a process oriented approach and is not reliable as per Porres and Berg. The theories by the four authors mentioned are as follows. Elton Mayo: The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization (1945) which included Hawthorne studies at western electric company. He stated that in simple communities, there is a stability of the social order that has ceased to characterize highly developed industrial centers. Chris Argyris: Integrating the individual and the organization (1957, 1964) which focuses on the psychology of the individual. He stated that psychological success and effectiveness is not possible in a pyramidal structure. Douglas Mc Gregor: Human side of the enterprise. He suggested three basic means, which include the development of; a) A climate or philosophy that leads to the humanistic utilization of a hierarchy, b) Interpersonal skills through the use of T-groups, c) The improved effectiveness of small working groups (the inevitable basic links between interdependent individuals in organizations). Rensis Likert: The human organization. Likert maintained it is the consistency with which the parts mesh together that is more important the character of any of the specific techniques of management or organization. He promoted common culture and matrix organisation. He also suggested that highly productive organizations are tightly knit social systems.

A lack of clarity in the relationships among industrialization, hierarchy, alienation, and small group formation when all these four theories are considered. After these theories are covered, the social organization mechanisms are considered which includes markets, bureaucratic hierarchies and clans. Bureaucratic hierarchies are said to overshadow the markets and the clans. Types of organizations have been discussed including Type Z (Long-term employment, Slow evaluation and promotion, Moderately specialized careers, Consensual decision making, Individual responsibility, Implicit, informal, Holistic concern) and Type A organization (Short-term employment, Rapid evaluation and promotion, Highly specialized careers, Individual decision making, Individual responsibility, Explicit, formal control, Segmented concern). Striking example of Japan has been taken to make the understanding of Type Z organization. 

Lastly, the solution to the industrialised settings is given in the form of organizational philosophy (OP) which is defined as primarily a mechanism for integrating an individual into an organization and linking individual goals to the organizational goals which can ultimately help in decision making of the companies. The companies do not use it because of little incentive or benefit to itself. People do not have the luxury to start a company themselves. OP should be formed at the top organisational unit which is autonomous. OP has to be practiced when it is in the context of long term goals whilst taking care of the short run changing conditions and when it can be practically implemented.


Submitted by: Srijana Singh, OBD group

Sunday, December 3, 2017

Individual Power and Political Behaviors in Organizations

[Schein, Virginia E. (1977), Individual Power and Political Behaviors in Organizations: An Inadequately Explored Reality. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan), pp. 64-72]

In organizations, we have different perpetually ongoing and pervasive functions like planning, organizing, directing and controlling. All these functions deal with the usage of available resources in the organization like men and machinery. Employees (men) are an important asset of any organization. But as each individual is unique and they carry their unique personal goals along, the difference between their personal goal and organizational goal creates a conflict between the individual and organization. To avoid that open conflict, individuals try to acquire certain power or favor. That’s why individuals get involved in struggle for power. That’s how struggle for power and its practice become much a part and parcel of the above mentioned functions performed in organizations. By this one could conclude that power and political behavior will also be all pervasive function of the organizational environment.

The paper which is reviewed here narrates this reality and develops arguments.  Power is always acquired on the basis of certain tangible or intangible set of resources which forms the bases of power. Now when one is in possession of some power then one can use it (via means) in order to get our personal goals achieved (intent) using some tactics. In this paper, Schein describes intent of the power holder as the mediating variable between the powers available to them and means to be used. Intent of the power holder is a function of personal needs or goals of individual and the contingency of situational factors. Intent of the power holder will be the deciding variable for the means to be used for getting the needs fulfilled or goals accomplished. There is a strong link between intent and means of using power by individuals in the organization. He put forwarded that whether one’s personal goals are congruent to the organizational goal or not has a strong relation with what type of means one would be using to accomplish that goal. The literature had founded that when individual’s goal was congruent to organizational goal, then that individual had used overt means and when his goal was incongruent to organizational goal then that individual had used covert means. 

Now this is not true that at one time individuals use only one type of means as they are found to be using both overt and covert types of means simultaneously. For example, when an individual’s personal goal is incongruent to the organizational goal, then although he is using covert means to reach to his goal but he will be expressly showing certain overt means which are congruent to the organizational goal. Now in this way the individuals use their powers in order to get their incongruent personal goals achieved without openly going in contradiction with the organization. So in nutshell on the basis of paper one could conclude that the individual intent plays a very important role in evaluation of his political behavior in organization.

[submitted by Kirti Saroha, M.Phil Batch XLI (2017)]