Organizational Theory Business: Organizational Culture
Table of Contents
TOC \o “1-3″ \h \z \u Introduction
Organizational Culture
Modern Organization Theory
Symbolic-Interpretative Organization Theory
Post-Modern Organizational Theory
References
Appendices
Appendix A: Some Applications of Organization Theory
Appendix B: Major Perspective of Organizations
Introduction
The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary defines theory as a supposition or system of ideas that explain something, specifically one that is based on different important principles that are considered as independent of the particular things to be explained (Oxford University Press 2006). In addition, it can also be define as the plan or scheme that exist in the mind only, but based on principles verifiable by experiment or observation (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania n.d.).
On the other hand, organizations was defined by Draft (2004), as the social entities that are goal-oriented, designed as deliberately structured and coordinated activity systems that are linked to the external environment (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania n.d.)
Thus, the organization theory was defined by Kast & Rose (1970) as the set of different propositions or body of knowledge that stems from a definable field of study that can be called as the organizations science. It is considered as applied science due to the fact that the result of the knowledge is connected or important to the activities of problem solving and decision making in an ongoing enterprise or institutions. In general, it is made up of two important things: knowledge that is generated by practical experience and scientific research; and solving problems and managing resources (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania n.d.).
In general, the organization theory can be defined as the application of different scientific knowledge in engineering as well as other important forms of technology that brought different vital and important changes in the entire material context of the human’s life over the past centuries (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania n.d.). Thus it can be applied in different operations, activities and aspects of the organization.
Previously, people were considered as less interested towards the organizational culture. This is due to the fact that most of the people thought that cultural perspective is not that important and vital in the entire operations and performance of a given organization. As a result, when it comes to the process of cultural change, more often than not, managers used to take their action at the end of the process or at the time where in the organization is already facing bankruptcy and other financial problem that end up to failure. As of now, due to the development of the entire organizational theory, together with the development and changes in the external and internal environment of business such as globalization, advanced technology, particularly the Internet, great needs for innovation and development and the ever changing preferences and tastes of the customers around the world that are caused by trends and other important social factors, culture is considered as a vital aspect in an organization. This is due to the fact that it helps to shape how the people think as well as behave.
This is due to the fact that once an employee gets hired, initially he or she will try to identify the existing culture because it helps him or her to adapt to the current organization behavior of the organization.
This paper will focus on the development of organizational theory towards organization culture from modern, symbolic-interpretive and postmodern (See Appendix B).
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is considered as the personality of the organization. Culture is consists of assumptions, values, norms and tangible signs or artifacts of the members of the organization, together with their behaviors (McNamara 2000).
There is no single definition for the organizational culture. There have been different studies from different aspects of perspective that varies from disciplines like anthropology and sociology to the applied disciplines of the organizational behavior, management science as well as the entire organizational communication (McNamara 2000).
Becker & Geer (1960) define organizational culture as the set of common understandings around where in action is organized, find expression in language where in nuances are peculiar to the group. Louis (1980) added that it is a set of understanding or even meanings that are being shared by a group of people that are considered as largely understood among the members and are obvious and evident to that particular group that are also passed to the new members or comers. Furthermore, Allaire & Fisirotu stated that it is a system of knowledge as well as standards that are use in order to perceive, believe, evaluate and then act in order to relate the human communities towards their environment settings. Thus Schein (1988), believe that it is the deeper level of the basic assumptions as well as beliefs that are learned responses to the problems of the group towards survival in its respective internal environment, together with the problem in its internal environment. Consequently, it can be shared by the organization’s members that operate in unconscious manner that is commonly taken fro granted (McNamara 2000).
Generally, Trice & Beyer concluded that it is any social system that arise from a given network that has the same and shared ideologies that are consists of two important components such as the substance or the networks of meaning that are connected with the different ideologies, values as well as norms; and the forms or the practices where in the meanings are expressed and communicate and later on affirm to the members of the organization (McNamara 2000).
Hatch (1997), divided the entire development of the organization theory into four important major perspectives. Each decade are marked for each and every perspective that shows the time period when a given perspective had become famous in the said field. Furthermore, the perspective also has the influential and famous thinkers that are commonly connected with them with the most important contributing disciplines. The four important perspectives are the following: Classical (1900s), Modern (1950s-), Symbolic-Interpretive (1980s) and Postmodern (1900s -) (see Appendix A) (Kauppila & Möttönen 2006).
Modern Organization Theory
The most important influence during the modern perspective is the General System Theory that was based on the theory of Ludwig von Bertalanffy from the 1950s where in it explains that all scientific phenomena across all the natural as well as social sciences from the atom and molecule up to the single cell, organ as well as organization up to the level of individuals, groups as well as societies. During the said era, theories break some of the barriers between the sciences as well as the proposed-cross-disciplinary research due to the fact that the there was a revolution and major changes in the way the sciences are conducted (net)
In the modernist approaches, the organization theory focuses on the influence of the national culture towards the performance of the organization. Hofstede’s approach focuses on the notion that organizations are considered as a subculture of larger cultural systems by studying the impact of the national culture towards the position of IBM in the entire industry. As a result, Hofstede came up with the idea about the four dimensions of the national culture such as: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism and the masculinity vs. feminity (book). All of the said factors focus on the fact that each and every member of an organization can be affected by the larger national culture, thus it is helpful for each and every manager to know the national culture in order to ensure good performance of each and every employee. In addition, the vitality of Hofstede study does not only identified the specific, measurable and differences of national culture but also indicated that the organization culture is considered as a vital portal where in the society has a great influence over the organizations. The said dimensions had also helped to offer information regarding the central beliefs and assumptions that create the culture of the organization (Hatch & Cunliffe). On the other hand, in distinction to the theory of Hofstede, Schein explains that the core of the vitality of culture is the assumptions. This is due to the fact that the basic assumptions can help to show and represent the truth or the culture believes to be the reality. Thus, the said theory focuses on the fact that the deep assumptions in culture permeate the next level of the culture-cultural values. The value is considered as the social principles, goals as well as standards that the members of the organization believe to have a vital worth (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). Value is important because it helps to show the priorities of the member and help the members to decide regarding what right and what is wrong. Thus, it is important to acknowledge that one of the primary causes of dilemma for the organization value is the new comers and outsiders (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006).
The said theory is somewhat a support to the theory of Hofstede regarding the national culture; however, it focuses more on the differences in national culture and how the assumption can help the foreign culture to become aware of the new culture. This is due to the fact that different culture can result to different assumptions, thus the assumptions can push the individual to become aware of what is going on in his or her environment and then ask questions regarding. If he or she understands the reason behind the particular culture, it can help him or her to cope up with the new culture that can help to improve the entire behavior of the organization.
With relation to the said famous theories, it can be said that the modernist approach had been able to provide knowledge and information that translate the organization culture into the field of management. However, it is also important to consider that those theories are somewhat limited by the objectivity in observing and analyzing the different dimensions o the organizational culture that was defined by the previous researchers. Thus, much of the modernist studies are not likely to show the surprises that can take place when a researcher meets or faces his or her own cultural assumptions by the subjective experience of living in as well as adapting with another culture. The said limitation is the advantage or edge of the symbolic-interpretative researchers that focuses on showing fact by the subjective knowledge, due to the fact that the modernists are keeping more and more distance from the real or actual phenomena that they are studying due to the different fixed measurements methods and tools that they are using (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006).
Symbolic-Interpretative Organization Theory
The next approach or era is the symbolic-interpretative approach towards the organization theory. During this era, different theories focuses on the fact that people make the phenomena real by the process of speaking as well as acting in the way that it will make it genuine and factual. Thus, different theories in this era started to make the people become more aware of their vital and important role in the different process inside the organization. In addition it also relates the idea and notion of the postmodernist that focuses on controlling all of the said processes in order to rebuild and restructure the organization (net).
Different organization theorists and researchers that are applying the perspective of the symbolic-interpretive assumes go for the subjective ontology as well as the interpretive epistemology. Furthermore, focus on how the members of the organization will be able to make meaning, and what is the importance of the said role in entire interaction and performance inside the working place. Thus, unlike the modernist approach, the symbolic-interpretative perspective focuses on the vitality of the context and its relationship with the artifacts as well as symbols. It explains their belief that the act of moving the different cultural symbols out of the context as well as into another can change their meaning or definition (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006).
Another difference between the modernist and the symbolic-interpretative approach is that the second one focuses on the process of contextualizing by studying the different artifacts and symbols in the location and situation where in they actually take place, which allows the members of the organization to use as well as speak about the different issues as typically as they do. That’s why it will be important to consider the primary goal of the symbolic-interpretative culture is for the researchers to experience and encounter the different contextualizing effects of the culture of the organization towards them as well as see the said effects that can help them to understand the culture from the side, where in members do (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006).
The said perspective had been able to focus on more detailed aspects of culture such as the language, the costume and other important things that are part of each and every individual, and its impact on the entire performance and behavior of the organization.
Post-Modern Organizational Theory
The post-modern perspective is different from the first two perspectives due to the fact that it is totally dependent on the metaphor of the text. As a result, theorists from the said perspective believe that each and every text takes place in a large part that it is open for any changes by the future text as well as reading. That’s why it is important to treat the culture qualities, members of the organization, symbols as well as actions as a connected or related text that are under the ongoing references (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006).
Furthermore, unlike the modern and symbol-interpretative perspective, post-modern perspective focuses on the fact that the culture is fragmented. Meaning, each and every individual have different culture, thus organizational culture are inconsistent, ambiguous, multiplitous and it is always in the state of instability (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). Thus it shows that even though in one of the aspects such as gender, religion, age group, two persons have something in common, it will not necessarily mean that they will have the same perspective and reference to another subject matter. This is due to the fact that members of the organization are forever creating, telling as well as negotiating different stories to different people, at different times as well as in different locations.
As a result, it can be said that the post-modern perspective is applicable to the current situation of the entire business, specifically due to the huge impact of globalization to the different organizations around the world. This is important because, cultural differences are considered as one of the most observable phenomenon and condition inside different organization. Aside from that, this perspective enables organizations to become aware of the individual differences rather than the group. This is different from the modern perspective where in it brings up the idea of the group, where in it believe that it represents the entire behavior and culture of those members who belong to that particular cultural group.
As a result, the said understanding regarding the organizational culture had been able to help different management of organization to consider the vitality of the culture in terms of leadership, management style, motivational plan and other important aspects and activities that are related to the process of handling and controlling the performance of the employee, and how it can help the company to improve and develop their performance, thus helps to sustain their competitive advantage.
References
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Introduction to Organization Theory, viewed 4 December 2008, <http://cob.bloomu.edu/ramin/Ammar% 20Lecture%20Notes/Oganizational%20Theory/Org%20Theory-Introduction.ppt>
Hatch, M J & Cunliffe, A L 2006, Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspective, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press
Kauppila, J, Möttönen, M & Peltoniemi 2006, Proceedings Estiem Vision Cycles Seminar, Oulo Finland, viewed 4 December 2008, <http://www.estiem. org/Upload%5CFiles%5CVision_Oulu_Proceedings.pdf >
McNamara, C 2000, Organizational Culture, Free Management Library, viewed 4 December 2008, <http://www.managementhelp.org/org_thry/culture/cu lture.htm>
Oxford Encyclopedia English Dictionary 2006, What is Organization Theory? viewed 4 December 2008, <http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/978019926 0218/hatch_ch01.pdf >
Tsoukas, H & Knudsen, C 2005, The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-theoretical Perspective, Oxford University Press
Appendices
Appendix A: Some Applications of Organization Theory
Source: (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania)
Appendix B: Major Perspective of Organizations
Source: (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania)
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment