Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Syllabus |
|
||||
- Resources |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
TECHNOLOGY IN THE WORKPLACE | |||||
|
Technology & the Workplace | ||||
|
Mode of Production | ||||
|
Social Structure | ||||
|
Organizational Structure |
|
|||
|
Organizational Structure Charts | ||||
|
The Formal Organization in the Workplace: The Orgl Structure of Economic Orgs |
|
|||
|
Technology, Organizatonal Structure, & Technological Determinism | ||||
|
The Putting Out System | ||||
|
Division of Labor, the Social DOL, & the Mfr. DOL | ||||
|
Workplace Control | ||||
ECONOMIC SOCIOLOGISTS | |||||
|
Richard Edwards Contested Terrain | ||||
|
Frederick Taylor: Scientific Mgt | ||||
|
Worker Resistance to Control | ||||
|
Burawoy: Manufacturing Consent | ||||
|
HRM: Human Relations Management | ||||
|
Hawthorne Studies | ||||
|
Hawthorne Effect & Placebos | ||||
WORKPLACE MICRO ORGANIZATION | |||||
|
Weber: Bureaurcracy | ||||
|
Types of Corporations | ||||
|
Who Holds Organizational Power? Staff & Line Mgt. | ||||
|
Organizational Structure Types: Matrix Orgs | ||||
|
Labor Markets | ||||
|
Organizational Culture | ||||
|
The Dysfunctions of Bureaucracy | ||||
WORKPLACE MACRO ORGANIZATION | |||||
|
Centralization of the Economy: Market Concentration | ||||
|
Key Interest Groups: Domhoff | ||||
|
The Power Elite: Mills | ||||
|
Externalities & Spillovers | ||||
SOLUTIONS | |||||
|
McGregor: Theories X & Y | ||||
|
Participation: Ouchi: Theory Z | ||||
|
Organizational Democracy | ||||
|
Democratic Orgl Structure |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
The mode of production consists of the two components of the forces of production & the relations of production |
|
|||
Each type of economic system, i.e. agricultural, craft, industrial, & post-industrial economies, is constituted by a particular mode of production |
|
||||
|
a. The forces of production include people & their ideology & the material factors affecting production such as technology |
|
|||
|
See Also: Technology | ||||
The forces of production consist of FIVE components including cooperation of producers, instruments, technology, ideology, & the natural habitat: |
|
||||
|
i. The social cooperation of the producers structures how workers either work together, compete etc. as seen in small business, assembly lines, independent contracting, temp work, etc. |
|
|||
|
ii. The instruments of production such as tools, machines & physical technology |
|
|||
|
iii. Technology includes the operations, materials & knowledge based technology as well as the general education & skill level of the workforce |
|
|||
iv. The ideology of each class; i.e. there worldview, culture etc. including their work ethic, views on mobility, views on the legitimacy of the merit system, etc. | |||||
|
v. The natural habitat including natural resources, access to trade routes, isolation or centrality, etc. |
|
|||
|
b. The relations of production consist of THREE components including property relations, class structure, & the social cooperation among producers |
|
|||
|
i. Property relations structure the ownership of society's productive resources (property relations) including such legal forms as the sole proprietorship, the trust, the corporation, the partnership, the cooperative, etc. |
|
|||
|
ii. Class structure structures who controls a society's productive resources such as when 90% of stocks & bonds are owned by 5% of the population |
|
|||
|
The class structure structures ownership & control of society's wealth & income |
|
|||
|
iii. The social cooperation among producers structures the type of econ system relations such as competition, monopoly, oligopoly, globalization, etc. |
|
|||
The social cooperation of producers includes the formal & group structures prevalent in society, the available orgl structures, the available inter orgl relations, & orgl relations w/in society | |||||
A contemporary view holds that the social relations of production include material & non material means of production & production techniques used to produce goods & services | |||||
The relations of production structure ownership & control of the means of production, i.e. control of the "shop floor" | |||||
|
Marx was aware of both internal relations such as the forces & relations of production & external or miscellaneous factors in production relations such as war, trade, immigration, climate, geography, physical conditions, social change, etc. |
|
|||
One of humanities earliest occupations was warrior | |||||
Today many conflict theorists, such as C. Wright Mills, believe that war has become a primary determinant via the military industrial complex |
|
||||
For Marx, in war, people are conquered along w/ land & human accessories (homes and tools), & so arises slavery & serfdom | |||||
Marx discovered that change in the mode of production contributes to new social formations | |||||
|
Social change in the economy is usually experienced as a change of the mode of production, which is constant & inevitable, but there are also random historical events such as changes in style, war, market fluctuations, etc. |
|
|||
|
Change in the mode of production, i.e. in the forces and / or the relations of production are necessary but not sufficient conditions for emergence of certain, new social formations |
|
|||
Thus, Daniel Bell is utilizing Marxist theory when he asserts that the industrial sector is developing new forces & relations of production that are transforming society into a post industrial society that impacts the economic & other social structures of society | |||||
Marx discovered that the mode of production determines the character of the people, & ultimately historical conditions, & economic systems | |||||
|
For Marx, it is not our ideas that shape the world, but our relationships with each other that shape our ideas, & thus again, 'we are what we do' |
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: Draw an Org Structure |
|
||||
- Project: Your Org's Structural Qualities |
|
||||
It is important not to confuse Social Structure w/ Orgl Structure | |||||
Social structure is the organization of society, including institutions, social positions, the relationships among social positions, the groups or orgs that make up society, & the distribution of scarce resources w/in the society | |||||
See Also: Social Structures |
|
||||
Social structures are all composed of groups or organizations | |||||
Each of the social structures, PF REG M CEML, is composed of orgs, & orgs w/in each of the social structures has similar structures that are unique to that social structure | |||||
Economic orgs, i.e. businesses have structures made up of the relations btwn different members of the business held together by various economic bonds | |||||
While different economic orgs, i.e. businesses, have some different features of their structures, all businesses have some structural features in common including owners, mgrs, partners; & workers, employees who are together by the bond of creation, labor, employment | |||||
Org structure is the formal reporting relationships, groupings, & systems of an org |
|
||||
Org structure is the distributions, along various lines, of people among social positions that influence the role relations among these people (Blau, 1974, p. 12 ) | |||||
|
Org structure is the established pattern of relationships among the various parts of an org & among the various workers in the org |
|
|||
Most orgs in the core nations are organized as bureaucracies, in the shape of a pyramid, w/ authoritarian lines of command & control, w/ minimal imput from wkrs | |||||
|
Org structure is not visible in the same sense as the structure of a material object such as a bridge, but its consequences are just as real |
|
|||
|
Social structure is related to orgl structure, but is a more general concept used to describe such diverse phenomena as the family & the govt |
|
|||
Org & social structures specify patterns of obligations & responsibilities that the incumbents of different roles have in relation to one another | |||||
Orgl structural relationships influence the sympathies, affections, & animosities that different members of the group are likely to experience toward one another | |||||
Specific orgs, such as govt agencies, economic orgs, religious orgs, political parties, etc., have different aims, but they share in common identifiable, unique structures for the attainment of their goals | |||||
Some of the traits of all org structures are discussed below, while the traits of economic orgs, i.e. businesses are discussed elsewhere | |||||
See Also: See Also: The Organizations that Compose the Social Structures | |||||
See Also: Economic Org's Structure | |||||
A major factor in any orgl structure is the division of labor which is the specialized positions in an org structure | |||||
When there is a division of labor, people are given different tasks or jobs w/in orgs | |||||
Hierarchy is the authority inherent in an org structure which is specified via a top down chain of command | |||||
Hierarchy is the positions that people fill that have rules & regs that specify how people are to act in their orgl positions | |||||
Ranson, Hinings & Greenwood (1980) see orgl structure as "a complex medium of control which is continually produced & recreated in interaction & yet shapes that interaction: structures are constituted & constitutive" | |||||
Fombrun (1986) sees orgl structure as the juxtaposition of techl solutions, pol exchanges, & soc interpretation in & around orgs resulting in modes of structuring | |||||
For Fombrun there is a dialectical unfolding of relations among orgl actors that has consequences for orgl form | |||||
For Fombrun structure is thus continually emergent & yet retains properties of social relations from the past | |||||
Review: Each of the types of orgs generally has a form of orgl structure that is unique to it including functional, vertical & matrix orgl structures | |||||
In analyzing orgl structure, common factors are looked at across org type | |||||
Orgl structure is one component of the org's internal env which determines how activities are conducted | |||||
Orgl structure determines how authority & communications flow from management to workers |
|
||||
The trend in orgl structure is toward "flatter," decentralized orgs w/ close communications btwn internal & external participants |
|
||||
There are THREE factors that affect orgl structure, including the: |
|
||||
a. tasks performed by an org |
|
||||
|
b. manner in which management desires to perform the task ( i.e., mgt. strategy ) |
|
|||
|
c. external factors such as customers, competitors, govt, etc. |
|
|||
|
The components of orgl structure execute basic tasks/functions, such as design, production, marketing, finance, HRM, etc. | ||||
|
In general, the corporation today is organized into TWELVE Departments, but there may be more or less. They are listed in approximate order of historical appearance | ||||
|
Mintzberg developed a model w/ FIVE Components in the Org Structure | ||||
|
Mintzberg developed an Org Typology based on his model of Org Structure | ||||
|
Hall developed a model w/ FOUR Qualities of the Org Structure each of these is a variable that has high, medium, & low levels |
|
|||
|
a. Complexity | ||||
|
b. Formalization | ||||
|
c. Centralization | ||||
|
d. Communications |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
The empty orgl chart below is a generic model that represents the typical hierarchical bureaucracy in many Western nations today |
|
||||
The top tiers represent upper mgt, then middle mgt below them, & the smallest boxes on the bottom represent the wkrs or wkrs' units | |||||
|
|
||||
The pyramidal orgl chart below focuses only an administration & therefore primarily covers upper & middle mgt, w/ no actual wkrs begin represented |
|
||||
|
|
||||
The industrial orgl chart below represent a functional org chart in that four major functions are represented: R & D, mkting, the factory, & admin |
|
||||
|
|
||||
The Japanese industrial firm's organizational chart represents a functional design by focusing on sales, engineering, purchasing, mfr, quality control, & mgt |
|
||||
Note that the Japanese firm puts mgt on par w/ other orgl structures while Western orgs typically place mgt above the rest of the org in the hierarchy | |||||
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
The structure of econ orgs consists of formal relationships, differentiation, integration, authority structure, & admin structure (French, Kast, & Rosenzweig, 1985) |
|
||||
a. A part of the structure of econ orgs is the pattern of formal relationships & duties which includes the org'l chart, job descriptions, formal & informal lines of communication, the division of labor, etc. |
|
||||
b. A part of the structure of econ orgs is how the various activities or tasks are assigned to different depts. & people in the org establishing a division of labor, a hierarchy, stratification of resources, the differentiation of roles & positions, etc. |
|
||||
c. A part of the structure of econ orgs is how the separate activities or tasks are coordinated & integrated |
|
||||
d. A part of the structure of econ orgs is the power, status, & hierarchical relationships w/in the org which establish the authority structure |
|
||||
e. A part of the structure of econ orgs is the planned & formalized policies, procedures, & controls that guide the activities & relationships of people in the org establishing the administrative structure |
|
||||
The most important variations in org structure include role specialization, standardization, centralization, autonomy of the org, ratio of supervisors to workers (Zey-Ferrell, 1979) |
|
||||
1. Role specialization is the extent to which roles in the org are defined in terms of a narrow range of activities as opposed to a broad agenda of responsibilities |
|
||||
2. Standardization is the extent to which procedures follow specific rules as opposed to being developed on an ad hoc basis for each situation |
|
||||
3. Centralization is the extent to which decision make is performed by key decisions made by one or a few persons at the top of the org or dispersed throughout the org |
|
||||
4. Autonomy is the extent to which the org & org actors are free to to make its own decisions & establish its own agenda as opposed to reporting to someone higher up in the hierarchy, whether that person be in the org or in a parent org |
|
||||
5. The ratio of supervisors to workers is the extent which the org is top-heavy w/ mgrs. as opposed to having the majority of its members involved in the production of goods & services |
|
||||
The pattern of technology utilization & the org structure interact in that the division of labor is determined by the interaction of technology & the org structure |
|
||||
The mutual interaction of technology & org structure is seen in the fact that workers are assigned tasks based on technology & their skills, & their ranking in the hierarchy of the org structure, which is patterned via the roles & skills of the workers |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
Since the beginning of org theory, social scientists have asked whether org structure, social structure, society, & even humanity itself is determined by technology, or some other factor |
|
|||
Other factors that are considered to be deterministic include human nature, economics, particular drives such as sex or greed, psychological determinism, genetic / the drive to leave minions, religion, ideology, culture, & so on | |||||
Many historians & social scientists have seen tech as a major determining factor throughout the histl ages | |||||
However, the question for scholars of determinism is whether the social relations of production of particular age were determined by the technology or whether they could have been different because they were caused by particular property relations, class structure, or the social cooperation among producers | |||||
Marx analyzed FOUR types of determinism, including economic social relations, cultural / ideological relations, property relations, & technological determinism | |||||
A & B. Marx's determinism holds that economics relations (base) determine culture (superstructure), ideology, etc. |
|
||||
C. Some social theorists focus on modes of ownership, i.e. property relations as being determinant in society |
|
||||
See Also: Economic vs. Cultural Determination for a discussion of the determinism of the base, the superstructure, & property relations | |||||
D. Another type of determinism that Marx examines is technological determinism which holds that society, relations of production, culture, etc. are shaped by the current technology |
|
||||
How might one make the techl determinist argument in light of the internet or some other modern technology? |
|
||||
Marx does not give causal priority to instruments of production (technology), but the the relationships that exist w/ a particular set of technology |
|
||||
Marx said, "The hand mill gives you a society with the feudal lord; the steam mill, a society w/ the industrial capitalist." |
|
||||
As w/ economic determinism, Marx seems to go back & forth |
|
||||
For Marx, there is an interaction of all these elements in the economic base, i.e. the forces of production, the relations of production, the instruments of production, the historical conditions, etc. | |||||
|
Thus Marx & Engels are also social evolutionists while the final determinant is the economy, but this is not simple economic determinism | ||||
Engels wrote to Block, that there is an interaction of all these elements: the forces, relations, & instruments of production, hist conditions, the superstructure & the economic base, & more | |||||
While the final determiner of social relations is the economy, but Marx & Engels are also social evolutionists | |||||
The level of development of the forces of production at the pure techl level is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the emergence of certain social formations | |||||
For Marx, as the instruments of production (technology) vary, so does div of labor, but not necessarily the nature of the society as a whole, or even its class structure | |||||
But we must look at each tech & stage of development to see its effect on the mode of prod | |||||
For Marx, the level of development of forces of production is a necessary but not sufficient condition for emergence of certain social formations | |||||
Contemporary social scientists have built on & modified Marx's view that social relationships are a primary determinant of society, social life, economic structure, orgl structure, etc. | |||||
Hodson & Sullivan hold that coal powered electrical generation plants must be a certain size to be economical; however, they fail to analyze whether the ownership structure & social relations of production (orgl structure) are fixed or not | |||||
Marx might concede that the size of a coal plant is relatively fixed, though many envl scientists might disagree | |||||
Marx would hold that ownership structure & social relations of production (orgl structure) in modern businesses w/ its control by elites for the benefit of elites is not is not deterministically explained & therefore the organization of industry could just as well be controlled by the middle class | |||||
Contemporary social scientists acknowledge that in particular histl circumstances, there are some factors that are more definitive than others; for example, some technologies today are used more efficiently in particular sizes of orgs | |||||
Blau, et al., (1976) found that the minimum size required for the effective use of most technologies is quite modest, & is well under that of today's large corps. | |||||
The reason that key parts of the economy are dominated by large firms is that these firms have the power to do so & not that there is any kind of technological determination that large corps must utilize centralized technologies | |||||
Since the beginning of the info, high tech age, orgs have found that tech can also be used to reduce centralization & the size of orgs, leaving large bureaucracies at a disadvantage | |||||
Diverse org forms of many varying sizes are competing effectively in world mkts challenging the large, bureaucratic org structure that predominated since the early 1900s | |||||
In sum, technology is one factor among many which has a deterministic impact on society; however, social relationships themselves appear to be more influential |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: The Division of Labor, Solidarity, & Social Problems |
|
||||
|
The division of labor (DOL) is highly specialized economic activity |
|
|||
The DOL is workplace relationship where different workers carry out different steps in producing a product | |||||
|
The DOL is a characteristic of most societies in which different individual or groups specialize in different tasks |
|
|||
|
The DOL is the specialization of work tasks, by means of which different occupations are combined w/in a production system |
|
|||
DOL = SPECIALIZATION = EFFICIENCY = COMPLEXITY | |||||
An example of the DOL can be seen in assembling bicycles in that one person performing all six required steps in assembling a bike, can make one unit in the same amount of time as it takes six people, each specializing in one of the six steps, to make 12 units | |||||
In 1776 Adam Smith argued that the DOL produces efficiencies because of the increased dexterity of the worker as he or she specializes in one task, because of the time save "in passing from one sort of work to another," and because of the introduction of machinery | |||||
|
All societies have at least some rudimentary division of labor, especially btwn the tasks allocated to men & those allocated to women |
|
|||
|
W/ the development of industrialism, however, the DOL becomes vastly more complex than in any prior type of production systems. |
|
|||
|
In the modern world, the DOL is international in scope, hence globalization |
|
|||
|
The most fundamental change in the nature of work over time has been the increasing DOL |
|
|||
EARLY DOL | |||||
|
In hunter gatherer societies, each member engaged in more or less the full range of work activities except as labor as divided by gender & age |
|
|||
|
See Also: Hunter Gatherer Society | ||||
|
See Also: Gender in Hunter Gatherer Society | ||||
It is believed that the earliest form of the DOL was that btwn men & women, & btwn children & adults | |||||
The child adult DOL began in the hunter gatherer era wherein children would tag along as adults did their tasks, learning the tasks & helping as their skills enabled them to help | |||||
The child adult DOL continued until factory work began & adults went out of the home to work, whereby child became a consumptive liability for a family rather than a productive asset | |||||
Until factory work began, the workplace orgl structure was identical w/ the family & extended family grp structure | |||||
|
In the Feudal Era, most workers were in agriculture, but some specialized in a single product & had occupations such as tailors, cobblers, bakers, etc. |
|
|||
|
See Also: The Feudal Era |
|
|||
SDOL | |||||
The social division of labor (SDOL) is the DOL into different crafts or trades | |||||
The SDOL began in the Feudal Era, but became widespread in the Early Industrial Age | |||||
|
In modern industrial societies, work has become so specialized that each trade is broken down into seemingly innumerable specialties |
|
|||
|
In the meat packing industry one can specialize as a large stock scalper, belly shaver, crotch buster, gut snatcher, gut sorter, snout puller, ear cutter, eyelid remover, stomach washers (sometimes called a belly bumper), hind puller, front leg toenail puller, & oxtail washer (Wilensky & Lebeaux, 1986) |
|
|||
|
Specialization creates new lines of work that require new & different skills; however, the DOL often reduces the range of skills needed to perform jobs |
|
|||
|
The DOL often results in the deskilling of workers |
|
|||
|
For example, a much narrower range of skills is needed to be a "gut snatcher" than a butcher |
|
|||
DOL, INDL REV, BUREAUCRACY | |||||
|
The DOL is a basic feature of industrialization, & the DOL as we know it today developed during the Industrial Revolution |
|
|||
|
The limited development of the DOL had occurred in eras previous to the Ind Rev | ||||
|
Bureaucracy had existed in limited forms previous to the Industrial Revolution, but w/ this change, bureaucracy, like the DOL became widespread | ||||
The DOL is one of the fundamental characteristics of bureaucracy | |||||
Bureaucracy as we know it could not exist w/o the DOL | |||||
See Also: Bureaucracy | |||||
See Also: Weber | |||||
Durkheim held that the DOL is a fundamental, defining feature of modern society | |||||
Durkheim believes that modern society could not exist w/o the DOL | |||||
One of Durkheim's most important insights was that the DOL & industrial interdependence, which he characterized as organic solidarity, replaced mechanical solidarity wherein each person / family is relatively independent when compared to today's people | |||||
See Also: Durkheim | |||||
See Also: Mechanical & Organic Solidarity | |||||
MDOL | |||||
Most work in industrial society is organized in terms of the manufacturing DOL (MDOL) | |||||
Under the MDOL, the different activities in each craft are separated | |||||
For example a cobbler would make soles, then make tops, & then stitch them together while w/ the MDOL workers would divide these two tasks into many | |||||
Early scholars of work in the 1800s conducted analyses of labor where they studied craftsmen in order to determine how to divide the labor among unskilled workers | |||||
The analysis of labor continues today wherein each manufacturer must conduct exhaustive studies to determine the optimal MDOL | |||||
Analysis of labor consultants often work closely w/ production engineers to optimize the way products are designed so that the components can be efficiently assembled | |||||
The MDOL often involves the increased efficiencies from the assembly line | |||||
The DOL allows some workers to be paid less than other workers & has resulted in large, stratified orgs w/ a tall hierarchy | |||||
The MDOL creates the preconditions for mechanization | |||||
Mechanization creates its own MDOL because workers must learn to operate various machines | |||||
EFFICIENCY VS. ALIENATION | |||||
Starting w/ Marx, it became well known that an extensive DOL frequently negated some of the increased efficiency because of the alienation & lost enthusiasm of the workers | |||||
The DOL is administered through direct personal control, foreman control, or technical control | |||||
See Also: Workplace Control | |||||
The DOL reached some limits in the 1970s in that jobs were so finely dissected, & wkrs were so alienated that even mgt sought alternative methods of job org | |||||
Modern indl society has developed the DOL to such a great extent via Scientific Mgt., bureaucracy, etc. that workers literally go insane | |||||
Since the 70s, there has been some limited reversal of the trend of an increasing DOL, in some industries such as auto manufacturing | |||||
In the 2000s, job enlargement & the recognition that "big picture people" give orgs an advantage is more than apparent, |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Mgrs generally seek as much control of the workplace as possible |
|
||||
The Division of Labor produces not only specialized positions but also a vertical differentiation w/in orgs based on power | |||||
See Also: The Division of Labor | |||||
Workers whose tasks are finely subdivided, i.e. deskilled, suffer a loss of skill, a loss of power, & a loss of wages | |||||
The power & income of those who organize the labor of others increases | |||||
In Labor & Monopoly Capital, 1974, Braverman argues that the purpose of assigning detailed tasks to different workers is to lessen their skills & thus lower their wages | |||||
In "The origins of job structure in the steel industry" (1974) Stone argues that while the division of labor of the crafts into subtasks & the development of machinery increased productivity, the assignment of detailed tasks to different workers is motivated by a drive to deskill labor in order to cheapen its price & reduce its intellectual power | |||||
Thus, the organization of labor becomes a way to control workers | |||||
Many social theorists have examined control in the workplace & found that control in the workplace is less a function of efficiency & more a function of maintaining power over workers & profits | |||||
Social theorists have found that power in the workplace influences power relationships in everyday life | |||||
See Also: Economic Sociologists | |||||
Organized labor & individual wkrs have generally been reluctant to seek shared responsibility for decisions making in the wkplace |
|
||||
Some theorist maintain that: |
|
||||
a. wkrs are culturally conditioned to be servile; i.e., to not welcome wkplace control by lower level employees | |||||
b. wkrs are alienated if they have no voice / power in the wkplace; i.e., wkr are more satisfied if they do participate in decision making in the wkplace | |||||
Labor has been reluctant to seek workplace control because of their historical adversarial role, the corporatist / business unionism philosophy, & because of the economic concessions labor would have to make to gain such participation |
|
||||
Both employers & unions began to consider cooperation during the 1980s where firms found themselves in highly competitive market environments |
|
||||
In return for concessions on wages & benefits, labor has sometimes won greater control over the work process, & a share in the profits |
|
||||
Greater control of the workplace & greater control of their share of the profits have often been done to help achieve employer survival & increase employment security |
|
||||
The effect of labor mgt joint decision making flows along the TWO dimensions
of:
a. control rights b. return rights |
|
||||
a. Control rights involve the degree to which labor participates in org decision making |
|
||||
Unionization in itself inserts a degree of control rights because mgt decisions are now limited, w/ some of them being made by the wkrs through their union |
|
||||
At the extreme, control rights include wk council arrangement such as in Germany |
|
||||
b. Return rights include the wage & salary system, incentive plans, profit sharing, gainsharing, ESOPs, etc. |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
TECH IS UNIQUE IN DEC MKING BECAUSE IT IS HUMAN CREATED, CAN BE TRANSFORMATIVE, OFTEN NOT CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD, & MAY CONTAIN UNKNOWN BENEFITS / COSTS | |||||
Technology is a basic envl condition for the dev of orgs because to a certain extent tech itself offers limits & opportunities for orgl dev |
|
||||
Orgs operating in an uncertain & dynamic techl env have different structures from those in techly stable envs |
|
||||
To deal w/ orgl uncertainly, orgs often estb separate divisions including R & D, indl engineering, mgt info systems |
|
||||
Tech is usually something external to an org, i.e. a resource, opportunity, threat, etc. that exists in the orgl env, but some tech orgs have tech as an internal factor over which they have greater control |
|
||||
Because tech & new ideas are part of the env, & since the sciences have norms of distribution, knowledge & scientific developments take a particular course to become useful to an org |
|
||||
Tech also exists in the managerial & administrative sciences in the form of the social sciences |
|
||||
Because orgs do not respond to tech through simple absorption, the control & dissemination of knowledge is a political process operating both in the env as well as in the org |
|
||||
Orgs have forces for stability & change & thus have their own internal "radical" & "reactionary" responses to tech, knowledge, etc. |
|
||||
In relation to the interorganizational relationships of orgs (IORs), orgs in highly complex techl envs are known to each other & can rank each other's performance |
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Technical Control & Scientific Mgt. appear to increase efficiency because they specify precisely how work is to be done, & how quickly |
|
||||
It is clear that w/ the development of work from the pre-feudal era, to the feudal era, to the industrial era, workers have clearly experienced increasing levels of control |
|
||||
One of the limitations of the control of the workplace is that the processes to achieve such control make limited use of workers' skills |
|
||||
Production rarely occurs exactly as planned, & machinery & parts often fail |
|
||||
When workers are denied the skills & training necessary to deal w/ unforeseen contingencies, they are not in a position to handle the unexpected |
|
||||
Technical Control & Scientific Mgt transfers skills to industrial engineers so that workers cannot deal w/ anomalous situations at work |
|
||||
Technical Control & Scientific Mgt remove freedom & enthusiasm at work |
|
||||
When workers are alienated because they are not creatively invested or challenged at work, they make a science of finding ways to allow production to lag, or to entertain themselves | |||||
|
The greatest growth in the Labor Movement occurred immediately after the advent of Scientific Mgt & Technical Control |
|
|||
Workers cooperate to "manage" the pace of assembly line work by working ahead, working up the line, banking production, or if they fall behind, by doubling up | |||||
The cooperation of workers to "manage the pace of work" is typically overlooked by mgt |
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
THE HUMAN RELATIONS MVMT (HRM) MAY, IN MANY WAYS, BE SEEN AS A RESPONSE TO TAYLORISM, HUMANIZING IT'S ATTEMPT AT MACHINE LIKE CONTROL | |||||
|
As Taylorism evolves, sci mgt incentive plans came under intense fire from wkrs & unions |
|
|||
See Also: Taylorism |
|
||||
Under Taylorism & class mgt, the amt of wk was raised to the pt where the wkr was exploited |
|
||||
Classical mgt was eventually supplemented by HRM |
|
||||
HRM incorporated & extended & cut out some ideas from classic mgt |
|
||||
By early 1920, the dysfunctions of standardizing wkrs & jobs were apparent |
|
||||
Wkrs could not be seen as mere appendages to the machine |
|
||||
HRM did not challenge the tenets of classical mgt of:
- task specialization - orderliness - stability - control |
|
||||
Industrial engineers became HR mgrs & thus the same people learned new social sciences related to the workplace |
|
||||
HRM supplemented classic mgt w/ the humane treatment of wkrs |
|
||||
Although money is an important motivator, most wkrs are willing to
take part of their reward in the form of:
- humane treatment - personal attn - some task control - & the chance to feel important |
|
||||
A. HRM RECOGNIZED THE IMPACT OF THE DEV OF INFORMAL GRPS & INFORMAL GRP NORMS |
|
||||
An example of HRM recognizing informal grp norms is seen in the list of norms from the Hawthorne bank wiring room | |||||
B. HRM STUDIES THE CHARACTERISTICS OF INFORMAL GRPS: INFORMAL ORGS AS CONTROLLERS, MGT ANALYTICAL TECH, THE GRAPEVINE, & INFORMAL RESISTANCE TO CHANGE |
|
||||
1. Informal orgs act as social control agents using norms, & demanding conformity from members | |||||
2. HRM must use new analytical technologies | |||||
Classic mgt used time & motion studies | |||||
HRM used socio metric tests to determine
- structure of grps - interaction btwn grp members - leaders - followers - most & least accepted members |
|||||
3. Informal grps use the grapevine for communication | |||||
|
4. Informal grps resist change |
|
|||
In informal groups, survival depends upon a stable continuing relationship among the people themselves | |||||
C. THERE ARE BOTH PHYSICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS TO THE DIV OF LABOR | |||||
Though the div of labor enhances productivity, fatigue & monotony must be dealt w/ from a psychl as well as a physical standpoint | |||||
Internal friction disrupts the orgl plan | |||||
The remedy to orgl friction is to reduce or eliminate orgl conflict
via:
- participative mgt - improved commo - recognition of human dignity |
|||||
THE LIMITATIONS OF HRM INCLUDE THE RELATIONSHIP BTWN PRODUCTIVITY & WKR SATISFACTION, THE DIVISION BTWN FORMAL & INFORMAL ORGS, WEAKNESSES OF QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY, & TRANSFERABILITY | |||||
1. The belief that participation = satisfaction = increased productivity is questioned in some research & supported in other research | |||||
In the HRM school, the belief that participation = satisfaction = increased productivity is called the "happiness school" | |||||
Research shows some correlation btwn satisfaction & productivity, but other factors may intervene | |||||
2. HRM saw formal & informal orgs as two distinct structures | |||||
We now believe formal & informal orgs are linked | |||||
HRM saw the goals of the formal & informal structures as irreconcilable, but this is not always true | |||||
3. Qualitative methods are problematic | |||||
4. HRM research was narrow & not easily transferred to other locations |
Links |
|
Links |
|
Summary: Elton Mayo headed a research project utilizing non-participatory, obtrusive observation at the Bank Wiring Room in the Western Electric Company Plant in Hawthorne, IL (Roethlisberger & Dickinson, 1939, p. 379-408) & eventually developed the concept, of what is now known as the Hawthorne Effect, & also found that workers are socially motivated as well as economically motivated, & that workers control the pace of the work | |||
The Hawthorne studies examined many setting including one w/ mostly young women working in a room at the plant wiring, soldering, & inspecting electrical boards in Hawthorne, IL | |||
An obtrusive (overt) non-participatory observer sat w/ women in the plant for a number of days, watching their work & interactions | |||
Initially, the observer noticed how the workers joked w/ & teased each other or occasionally helped one another | |||
The researcher noted that the group's productivity was basically constant, despite company efforts to increase it | |||
The research project eventually concluded that the small work group had developed an informal norm, as part of their organizational culture, defining an appropriate level of productivity | |||
See Also: Culture on folkways, mores, norms, laws, etc. | |||
See Also: Organizational Culture | |||
The advent of the work-pace norm meant that for social scientists studying the workplace, the concept of the the Economic Person, often called Homo Economus, w/ the concept of the Social Person because the Hawthorne researchers found that the workers sought more from work than just money | |||
The concept of Homo Socialus opened a whole new phase of workplace analysis whereby researchers, managers, & consultants all started examining workers' social needs & desires rather than just economic motivators | |||
The Hawthorne Studies created the realization that the work-pace is informally set by workers via social relations of production, that mgt. efforts are secondary, that workers actively resist control were major findings that are still valid today | |||
The findings of the Hawthorne Studies were found serendipitously through the FOUR phases of the study over several years | |||
During Phase 1, the researchers noted some inconsistent data | |||
|
During Phase 2, the researchers found that productivity increase irregardless of whether illumination was increased or decreased, which lead to the discovery of the concept of the Hawthorne Effect | ||
See Also: The Hawthorne Effect | |||
The concept of worker norms on work-pace & the foundational research on organization culture were discovered in the latter stages of the Hawthorne Studies | |||
|
During Phase 3, the researchers found that productivity was determined by an individual w/in a group | ||
|
Roethlisberger conducted 20,000 interviews & was important at this phase of the research | ||
|
During the interviews of the Hawthorne Studies, people tended to give standard, stereotyped answers to direct questions & therefore a nondirect approach was substituted | ||
|
During Phase 3, the researchers found that productivity was controlled by the workers, not managers | ||
|
In the Hawthorne Studies, in the Bank Wiring Room: | ||
|
1. Workers restricted output | ||
|
The workers restricted output because: | ||
|
a. the workers were afraid of working themselves out of a job | ||
|
b. the workers were afraid that if they did work faster, mgt. might raise standards, & then they wouldn't be able to achieve the goal set by mgt. | ||
|
c. the low rate protected slow workers | ||
|
d. mgt accepted the current rate | ||
|
2. Workers treated different mgrs differently in that they had more respect for upper mgt | ||
|
3. Workers formed cliques or subgroups such as gamesmen, job-traders, etc. | ||
|
4. Roethlisberger & Dickinson concluded that workers formed codes of conduct which held that: | ||
|
a. no rate-busters were allowed to turn out too much work | ||
|
Contemporary terms for rate-busters are brown-noser, mgt. material, shrimp, slave, speed king, etc. | ||
|
b. no chiselers were allowed to turn out too little work | ||
Contemporary terms for chiselers include slug, ghost, slacker, gold-brick (WW2), etc. | |||
c. no squealers were allowed to tell a superior anything that will hurt another worker or group | |||
Contemporary terms for squealers are brown-noser, snitch, rat, fink, snitch, informer, whistle blower, etc. | |||
d. no stand-off-ish-ness is allowed so that no one, not even an inspector, should maintain social distance or act officiously |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
|
Summary: The Hawthorne Studies began in 1924 at the Hawthorne Works of the West Electric Co. near Cicero, IL, & were conducted under auspices the National Research Council under the lead researcher, Elton Mayo. The objectives were to examine the effect of illumination on output. After 2.5 yrs. & many experiments, researchers could see no effect because output in both control & experimental groups had increased because the effect of being studied impacted the research subjects. But ultimately the research found that wkrs are socially motivated as well as economically motivated, & that it is the wkrs control the pace of the wk |
|
|||
THE HAWTHORNE EFFECT OCCURS WHEN WKRS REACT TO BEING STUDIED BY PLEASING THE RESEARCHER, & THAT WKRS CONTROL THE PACE OF WORK, & AS CONCERNED W/ SOCIAL AS WELL AS ECON INCENTIVES | |||||
|
Reactivity is the tendency of people being studied by social scientists to react to the researcher or to the fact that they are being studied |
|
|||
|
The Hawthorne Effect (HE) is a form of reactivity |
|
|||
In the Hawthorne Studies, the wkrs being studied in the General Electric Hawthorne Plant Motor Wiring Room attempted to please the researchers because they always attempted to please / appease authority figures on the job | |||||
Many researchers believe the research was affected by patriarchy & gender issues in that all the wkrs were women & all the researchers were men | |||||
|
The concept of the Hawthorne Effect, which was developed during the Hawthorne Studies, holds that added social attention to workers will increase their productivity |
|
|||
|
People in some parts of the Hawthorne Studies found that the people being studied attempt to please the researcher |
|
|||
|
THE PLACEBO EFFECT (PE) IS A FORM OF REACTIVITY WHEREBY PEOPLE REACT AS A RESULT OF BEING STUDIED, WHEN IN FACT NOTHING HAS CHANGED |
|
|||
|
A placebo is a false or phony treatment designed to differentiate btwn changes due to real treatment & "imagined" treatment |
|
|||
|
A placebo is a thing or treatment given by researchers that can provide remedy because subjects believe that their condition is being treated |
|
|||
|
The PE is widely known in medical studies because even groups who receive sugar pills instead of medicine often show improvement |
|
|||
|
The HE & the PE are very similar except the HE is often, at some level, consciously chosen whereas the PE is never consciously chosen |
|
|||
THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES AT FIRST FOUND NOTHING & THEN DISCOVERED THE PLACEBO / REACTIVITY OF THE WKRS, THAT THE WKRS CONTROLLED THE PACE OF THE WK, & THAT WKRS ARE SUBJECT TO SOCIAL & ECON FACTORS IN THE WKPLACE | |||||
At the GE Hawthorne plant, Elton Mayo & team of young male researchers studied effect of change in light level at the Hawthorne motor wire winding plant where the wkrs were mostly young women | |||||
At first the researchers were confused because productivity increased whenever any change occurred at wkplace, but they eventually discovered that the wkrs controlled the pace of the work & were motivated by social factors & not only econ factors as the classic mgt theory of the era held | |||||
Because of Mayo's research, the concept of the 'economic person' was replaced by the 'social person' in that people seek more from wk than money | |||||
One of the most important findings was that the pace of work was set by the wkrs | |||||
Mayo & other researchers came to the realization that pace is informally set by wkrs via social relations of production; mgt efforts are secondary, wkrs resist | |||||
Wkrs have labels such as rate buster, shrimp, slave, speed king, brown noser which they give to sanction wkrs who work too fast | |||||
Wkrs have labels such as slug, ghost, gold-bricker, slacker which they give to sanction wkrs who work too slow | |||||
|
During the Hawthorne Studies the HE was serendipitously discovered through dogged research |
|
|||
|
The Hawthorne Studies lasted several years & applied different treatments in different settings |
|
|||
|
One of the dynamics of the study was that the Motor Wiring Room was mostly staffed by young women while the researchers were all young "college men" |
|
|||
THE HAWTHORNE STUDIES WENT THROUGH 4 PHASES WHERE THEY FOUND: 1. INCONSISTENCIES, 2. THE PLACEBO / REACTIVITY EFFECT, 3. PACE SET BY THE WKRS, 4. WKRS WERE SUBJECT TO SOCIAL AS WELL AS ECON CONTROL | |||||
|
The focus of the study was an examination of the effect of illumination on the workplace; i.e., what was the optimal level of lighting for factory work |
|
|||
|
The findings of the Hawthorne Studies were found serendipitously through the FOUR phases of the study over several years |
|
|||
|
DURING PHASE 1, THE RESEARCHERS NOTED SOME INCONSISTENT DATA |
|
|||
The Hawthorne studies began in 1924 at Hawthorne Works of the West Electric Co near Cicero, IL | |||||
The original objectives were to examine effect of illumination on output | |||||
After 2.5 yrs & many experiments, could see no effect because output in both the control & the exp grps had increased! | |||||
PHASE 2 WAS A REVISITATION OF THE RESEARCH & THUS THE PLACEBO EFFECT / REACTIVITY OF THE WKRS WAS FOUND | |||||
|
During Phase 2, the researchers found that productivity increased regardless of whether illumination was increased or decreased |
|
|||
Productivity increased regardless of environmental changes in wkplace | |||||
To determine the cause of these changes in output, the researchers isolated small grps of wkrs for close observation | |||||
|
The observers, college males in lab coats, observed isolated small groups of workers, who were mostly young women |
|
|||
|
The women were told to ignore the researchers & work at their regular pace |
|
|||
|
The women & the men interacted |
|
|||
|
The researchers wondered if other factors were intervening, so they introduced hot lunches, rest periods, days off, Saturdays work, longer hrs., shorter hrs., high fatigue, etc. |
|
|||
|
When the researchers introduced & controlled various other factors in the workplace, output rose & stayed high! |
|
|||
|
There was no easily identified relationship btwn productivity & changes in the work environment |
|
|||
|
The impact on productivity seemed to lie more w/ social factors than w/ anything else |
|
|||
|
It was through intensive interviews that Roethlisberger discovered that the women were deliberately increasing productivity because of the intense observation, & the nature of the observers, that they were experiencing |
|
|||
|
The Hawthorne Studies revealed that the workers were reacting to being observed & that at some level, this reaction was conscious or deliberate |
|
|||
Ultimately as a result of revisiting the research which originally showed inconsistent data, Mayo found that the wkrs were reacting to being studied; they were doing whatever it took to please the researchers, thus revealing the concept of reactivity / the placebo effect in social research | |||||
|
In the later phases of the Hawthorne Studies, it was found that workers develop norms & organizational culture which impact, among other things, work pace |
|
|||
PHASE 3 FOUND THAT OUTPUT WAS DETERMINED BY THE GRP, OR EVEN AN INDIVIDUAL OR INDIVIDUALS W/IN THE GRP | |||||
Roethlisberger & Mayo conducted 20,000 interviews where they found that people tended to give standard, stereotyped answers to direct questions | |||||
Because of what he thought were standard answers, Roethlisberger utilized a non direct approach w/ fewer in depth interviews & observation | |||||
Through in depth interviews & observation, the researchers found that wkrs ( not mgrs ) controlled pace of wk | |||||
Wkrs at the GE plant controlled output because they:
a. feared wking themselves out of a job b. feared mgt might raise standards & then they wouldn't be able to achieve the goal set by mgt c. could protect low rate / slow wkrs d. realized mgt accepted the current rate |
|||||
Mayo & Roethlisberger also found that the wkrs treated different mgrs differently | |||||
The wkrs had more respect for top mgrs & particular mid & lower level mgrs whom they thought were fair or good / effective | |||||
Mayo & Roethlisberger also found that cliques or subgrps formed in the wkplace including 'games men' & 'job traders' as well as the 'leaders' who informally regulated the wkplace | |||||
PHASE 4 FOUND THAT WKRS WERE SUBJECT TO SOCIAL FACTORS / INCENTIVES | |||||
The predominant mgt paradigm at that time held that wkrs were motivated solely by econ factors | |||||
Roethlisberger & Dickson found that wkrs responded, & created & controlled a variety of non econ or social factors which had as much as or greater effect than the econ factors | |||||
Social factors that impacted wkrs were the codes of conduct created by the wkrs | |||||
One of the wkrs codes of conduct was a prohibition against rate busters who turn out too much work | |||||
Rate busters today might be called everything from brown noser to the more benevolent 'mgt material' | |||||
One of the wkrs codes of conduct was a prohibition against chislers who turn out too little work | |||||
Chislers today might be called everything from slug to ghost | |||||
One of the wkrs codes of conduct was a prohibition against squealers; e.g. those who tell a superior anything that will hurt another wkr or grp | |||||
One of the wkrs codes of conduct was a prohibition against stand-off-ish-ness; no one, not even an inspector, should maintain soc distance or act officious |
Links |
|
Links |
|
- Project: Weber on Rational / Bureaucratic Orgs |
|
||
- Project: Your Bureaucracy |
|
||
|
- Video: The Corporation |
|
|
- Project: Video: The Corporation & Bureaucracy |
|
||
|
There are THREE types authority
a. Rational or bureaucratic authority b. Traditional c. Charismatic |
|
|
|
Weber's definition of bureaucracy is an "ideal type"
i.e., an abstract definition based on a set of characteristics i.e., a pure type |
||
Bureaucracy is an orgl model rationally designed to perform tasks efficiently | |||
|
Weber developed, what may be called, a functionalist analysis of bureaucracy |
|
|
|
Bureaucracy, for Weber, is the development of legal / rational authority in social life |
|
|
|
For Weber, bureaucracies exhibit formal rationality, which means decisions are made purely on the basis of following the rules & procedures in order to accomplish organizational goals |
|
|
|
For Weber, conceived as a pure type, the modern bureaucratic org
has nine distinctive characteristics
1. Division of Labor 2. Hierarchy 3. Rules 4. Merit System 5. Mgt 6. Tenure 7. Wages & Salaries 8. Technical Competence 9. Formal Communications |
|
|
|
1. DIVISION OF LABOR IS THE ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION BASED ON SPECIALIZED POSITIONS |
|
|
|
In a bureaucracy, positions may require technical qualifications that require training (OJT or higher ed) |
|
|
|
Bureaucracy consists of positions bound by rules |
|
|
|
Positions have specialized spheres of competence w/ set of obligations & authority to carry it out |
|
|
|
2. HIERARCHY IS AUTHORITY SPECIFIED VIA A TOP DOWN CHAIN OF COMMAND |
|
|
In a bureaucracy there is a hierarchy of offices & positions | |||
|
Each official in a hierarchy has specific scope of authority |
|
|
|
In a hierarchical bureaucracy, each position commands those below it & takes commands from those above it |
|
|
The bureaucratic characteristics of the division of labor & hierarchy results in the pyramidal shaped org w/ which we are all familiar | |||
|
Note: militaristic chain of command |
|
|
3. RULES ARE PRINCIPLES MADE TO GUIDE & CONTROL ACTION; STANDARDS OR REGULATIONS | |||
|
Rules include administrative acts & decisions that are formulated & recorded in writing |
|
|
Rules are usually written today, but this is a recent innovation | |||
In most forms of organization, including bureaucracy, there are many informal, i.e. unwritten rules | |||
|
4. A MERIT SYSTEM IS EVALUATION ON THE BASIS OF ACHIEVEMENT |
|
|
|
Impersonality & universality in the merit system holds that people should be evaluated on the basis of achievement |
|
|
|
5. THE JOB OF MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION IS COORDINATION |
|
|
In early orgs, mgt was often done by the owner who many times was also a worker, who usually had the 'master' status | |||
As orgs became larger, mgt was separated from the workers, but usually the owner still participated in mgt | |||
Today there are some large orgs where the owner has little or no mgt duties; the owner hires a mgr just as they would a worker | |||
|
6. TENURE MEANS HAVING A LIFELONG CAREER / JOB SECURITY |
|
|
Job security / tenure has not been widely practiced in US since the Reagan era ( 1980s ) of downsizing began | |||
|
7. PAYING WAGES / SALARIES WAS A COMPENSATION INNOVATION WHEN COMPARED TO PIECE WORK, DAILY PAY, BARTER, OR 'UNCOMPENSATED' WORK BASED ON TRADITION, E.G. SERFS, SLAVES, ETC. |
|
|
Paying wages / salaries developed in the late middle ages since before that most people were either owners or unpaid serfs, peasants, etc. | |||
Before bureaucratization, salaried positions were often bought but Weber believed that bureaucratization should eliminate this practice, & it did | |||
8. TECHNICAL COMPETENCE IS THE POSSESSION OF SKILL BASED ON EDUCATION & / OR EXTENSIVE TRAINING | |||
Technical competence is the ability to do the job whether that is an actual technology related job or an admin job | |||
As the division of labor advances, the degree of technical competence also increases in that expertise rises & versatility falls & experts have less ability to talk & work together | |||
Traditional methods of education, training, & certification are being rationalized to ensure people are technically competent | |||
9. FORMAL, WRITTEN COMMUNICATION IS THE PRACTICE OF RECORDING COMMUNICATIONS IN A FORMALIZED, STANDARDIZED MANNER | |||
Formal, written communication is seen in the practice policy of writing everything down in order to allow all relevant parties to have access to the info | |||
The present era is an info era in that more info is available to more people than ever before both because people generate more info & because that info is available to more people | |||
The practice of formal, written communications by bureaucracies is the cause of the privacy crisis; for example, many orgs know more about a person than that person knows about themselves | |||
WEBER BELIEVES BUREAUCRACY IS THE MOST POWERFUL SOCIAL INVENTION SINCE THE FAMILY & RELIGION | |||
Though modern people equate bureaucracy w/ red tape & inefficiency, bureaucracy is the most efficient form of organization ever devised | |||
Weber saw rationalization as one of the most significant trends in modern society, & bureaucracy was the means by which it occurs | |||
Rational authority is based on a claim by leaders, acknowledged by the followers, that decisions made in the organizations are the most efficient in achieving the goals of the organization | |||
|
For Weber, Boeing is a rational, bureaucratic organization |
|
|
|
The dominant type of organization in modern society is the bureaucracy, i.e. the bureaucracy has great power, it is the most common, & is becoming more common |
|
|
|
Bureaucracy is one example of the rationalization of society |
|
|
|
Bureaucracy / rationalization is replacing tradition, religion, common sense & all other methods of knowledge & organization |
|
|
|
For Weber, bureaucracy was modeled after the Prussian military |
|
|
|
Historically speaking, bureaucracy is the most efficient system of organization |
|
|
|
Compare it to your family, church or unorganized group of people trying to accomplish a task |
|
|
|
Bureaucracy has displaced force, patrimony, loyalty, graft, corruption, etc. as methods of organization |
|
|
|
BUREAUCRACIES ARE EFFECTIVE FOR THREE REASONS, INCLUDING THE ELIMINATION OF IRRATIONAL AUTHORITY, A FOCUS ON TASKS, & COORDINATION |
|
|
|
a. Bureaucracy eliminates charismatic & traditional forms of authority which are usually seen as personal favoritism, nepotism, ethnocentrism, etc. |
|
|
|
b. Bureaucracy identifies tasks that need to be done & assigns someone to do them, & monitors how well they get done |
|
|
|
c. Bureaucracy provides a way to coordinate activities of a large number of people so that each effort contributes to the common task, goal or product rather than to individual tasks, or rather than working at cross purposes |
|
|
|
But there are also many inefficiencies of bureaucracy which overlap w/ many of the inefficiencies of the division of labor |
|
|
|
Bureaucracy destroys meaning & reason for work, people become interchangeable components |
|
|
|
For Weber, the bureaucratic organization is ‘the worst form of organization except for every other kind.’ |
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
POWER IS ALLOCATED BY THE ORGL STRUCTURE & CULTURE & VARIOUS ORGL ENTITIES SHAPED BY THESE |
|
||||
Power, authority, influence, etc. is all held by individuals in their positions in the organizational hierarchy |
|
||||
Thus, people higher up in the org should have more power than those lower in hierarchy |
|
||||
Power is often held in relationships outside of the formal organizational structure |
|
||||
a. Organizational culture creates & allocates power |
|
||||
b. Informal networks create & allocate power |
|
||||
c. Individual attributes, such as charisma, tradition, knowledge, etc., create & allocate power |
|
||||
Horizontal power relations should, but do not have to create power |
|
||||
Members, at each level of the org, struggle w/ peers for resources |
|
||||
Power may not enter into relationships if parties have no reason to influence others |
|
||||
Power plays w/ peers often enters in the types of conflicts over
a. budgets b. output quotas c. priorities for personnel d. what new tech is adopted & who gets it |
|
||||
1. DEPARTMENTAL POWER IS SOMETIMES SO GREAT THAT IT DOMINATES THE ENTIRE ORG |
|
||||
Perrow (1970) notes that sales depts are overwhelmingly the most powerful in orgs |
|
||||
In the past it was engineering / production which were the most powerful in most orgs | |||||
Fligstein (1987) notes that entrepreneurs or people who came up through mfr dominated corp presidencies in early 1900s, while today it may be finance |
|
||||
The parts of the org w/ most power carry out the most critical functions & have the other parts of the org depend on them |
|
||||
2. MANAGEMENT HOLDS POWER IN MOST ORGS TODAY | |||||
But there are other forms of orgs where power is more equally distributed | |||||
3. CLIQUES & COALITIONS ARE INFORMAL ORGS W/IN THE ORG WHICH CAN HOLD POWER | |||||
May be groups of mgrs, or any of the power holders discussed below | |||||
4. POWER IS HELD BY EVALUATORS THROUGHOUT THE ORG | |||||
Dornbusch & Scott (1975) demonstrate that regardless of who has day to day power over one power in orgs is often contained in evaluation | |||||
The one who evaluates, has authority | |||||
Dalton (1959) demonstrates that staff / line power struggles are constant occurrences in several areas | |||||
5. STAFF OFTEN COMES INTO CONFLICT W/ LINE PERSONNEL | |||||
Staff often have SIX characteristics that bring them into conflict
w/ line personnel, including that they are:
1. younger 2. more formalized 3. concerned w/ dress & manners 4. more theoretically oriented than line mgrs 5. more expert power 6. must secure coop from line/managers to do anything |
|||||
An early innovation in bureaucracy was the development of specialized staff positions | |||||
Modern bureaucracies often include staff positions that are outside the linear chain of command | |||||
See Also: Mintzberg, who has developed a 5 part model of the modern bureaucracy that includes staff & line segments | |||||
Staff positions are ancillary support positions | |||||
Staff positions are filled by specialized workers trained in some specific area, such as safety & health, law, accounting , personnel relations or other important functions that support the main activity of the org | |||||
Staff report directly to someone in a line position at a given level of the org; however, they have no direct relationship to those higher up in the hierarchy or to those in subordinate positions | |||||
Staff are supplementary experts needed at specific levels of the org, but they are not included in the formal chain of authority | |||||
Staff have less frequent promotion opportunities than for Line Workers because they have less defined job ladders | |||||
6. LINE / MANAGERS OFTEN COME INTO CONFLICT W/ STAFF | |||||
Line / mgrs have characteristics that bring them into conflict w/ staff
because they:
a. seek income, promotions, power b. hold the power through controlling the promotion process c. fear that staff may threaten their domain d. struggle over the same resources |
|||||
Line positions are those included in the linear chain of command w/in a bureaucracy | |||||
7. ACCOUNTING & INFO SYSTEMS ARE CENTRAL AGENTS OF POWER BECAUSE THEY DEAL W/ THE ORG'S MOST IMPORTANT RESOURCES | |||||
Accounting & info systems are important agents of power for reasons
including that
a. incentive systems provides basis of reward distribution b. power holders shape & decide what are issues & non issues c. they have access to critical info that others do not d. they have a range of professional discretion that can allow for divergent outcomes |
|||||
Staff resents line & vice versa |
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Culture may be defined as the shared content of society & thus organizational culture is the shared content of an org |
|
||||
The content of a society or org is it's shared knowledge, beliefs, values, & norms ( K B V N ) & the physical & abstract manifestations of that content |
|
||||
Org culture is the shared knowledge, beliefs, values, & norms of an org |
|
||||
Org culture is the interaction of the formal & informal structures of an org w/ the goals & objectives of the org leaders | |||||
Org culture is a special type of subculture that is unique to the network that includes & surrounds an org |
|
||||
An org culture includes all of an org's stakeholders or constituencies including customers, suppliers, govt regulators, families, similar orgs, etc. |
|
||||
All orgs have an org culture which is based on the social relationships, as orders by the formal org structure, that emerge among the people who work in or w/ the org |
|
||||
Lauer & Handel, 1983, found that all orgs have an org culture, a negotiated order | |||||
W/in an org, there are frequently org subcultures among the different org constituencies, such as employees in a dept, employees at a particular level of the org such as blue-collar workers, middle mgt, & upper mgt |
|
||||
An example of a slice of an org culture is where two workers in an engineering firm may become friends & help each other w/ their work which a third worker may be excluded from this friendship & thus not have help w/ her/his work |
|
||||
Org culture has a impact on how the bureaucracy of the org actually operates, in contrast to how it operates "on paper" |
|
||||
Org culture & the groups w/in an org, each of which who may possess it's own org subculture, often called a workplace culture |
|
||||
Org culture & workplace culture may facilitate or hinder the attainment of stated org goals |
|
||||
The org, w/ it's org culture & workplace culture may even develop their own goals, which may be inferior or superior to the org's stated goals, depending on one's perspective |
|
||||
Org & workplace cultures are sometimes known as the org's "negotiated order" in recognition of their emergence from the ongoing informal negotiations among different members of the org (Fine, 1984, Ouchi, & Wilkins, 1985, Miller, 1991) |
|
||||
Scott, 1992, holds that regarldless of the formal structure, people ultimately make the org |
|
||||
The negotiated order is the aggregation of the org's members needs, objectives, & experiences of others in the org |
|
||||
People in orgs push to get what they want, try things out, test the limits of the rules |
|
||||
Anselm Strauss, et al, 1964, found that the nature of the hospital they studied at any given time was the outcome of pressures, actions, & reactions of the people who made up the org |
|
||||
The doctors, attendants, nurses, administrators, patients, & others each has their own objectives, understandings or reality, and ideas about mental illness, which governed his or her behavior & relationships to others | |||||
Compromises, "looking the other way" & "agreements to disagree" were abundant in the hospital & were always subject to change as the situation changed or as new people entered the org | |||||
Strauss held that the hospital on one day is not the same as the hospital at a later time even though the formal structure stayed the same | |||||
Org culture is unique to each org & cannot be understood by examining the org's formal structure (Fine, 1984, Ouchi, & Wilkins, 1985) | |||||
As w/ any culture, new members must be socialized into the org culture & new employees who do not become socialized or accept the org culture experience conflict | |||||
The grapevine is the informal communication structure of the org culture | |||||
The national culture of a nation impacts the org & it's org culture |
|
|
Links |
|
Links |
|||
- Project: Key Interest Groups |
|
||||
- Project: Key Interest Groups in the Envl Debate |
|
||||
THE KEY INTEREST GROUPS INCLUDE CORPORATIONS, SMALL BUSINESSES, & LABOR / LIBERALS | |||||
According to Domhoff, 1983, there are three main interest groups trying to influence policy at the national level: the corporate coalition, the small business coalition, & the labor / liberal coalition |
|
||||
In 1990, there were more than 6,800 congressional lobbying groups in the US, however most of them tend to represent certain groups of interests, such as Domhoff three key interest groups |
|
||||
In 2005, there were more than 14,000 registered lobbying groups in Washington, DC, averaging just over two employees each for a total over 30,000 lobbyists (many lobbying firms are small) | |||||
In 2005, there were approximately 30,000 members of Congress & staff members, making the ratio of lobbyists to officials on the Hill nearly 1 to 1 | |||||
In the early 90s the total value of earmarks added to bills was under $100 mm, while in 2005 the value was over $32 bb | |||||
A. THE CORPORATE COALITION INCLUDES THE LARGEST CORPS IN THE WORLD, MANY HAVING MORE ECON POWER THAN THE MAJORITY OF NATIONS | |||||
The corporate coalition include multinational corporations from around the world |
|
||||
Also included in the corporate coalition group are policy foundations & research institutes that do not call themselves lobbyists, but claim to operate on the behalf of "good govt" or the "national interest" |
|
||||
Examples of conservative policy foundations include the Ford, Rockefeller, & Carnegie Foundations, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, & the Business Roundtable |
|
||||
Conservative policy foundations lobby for policies that promote free trade & polices that allow multinationals to operate in the world economy w/ minimum restrictions |
|
||||
The North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs (GATT), the US govt's support for the Maquiladores program are examples of the efforts of the policy institutes allied w/ the multinational corporations |
|
||||
B. THE SMALL BUSINESS COALITION INCLUDES ALL SMALL BUSINESSES, WHICH MAY BE WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCLUDING MANY PROFL ORGS | |||||
The small business coalition includes the Chamber of Commerce & national orgs of professions that operate as small businesses such as the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Dental Association (ADA), & the Farm Bureau |
|
||||
The small business coalition is more conservative that the corporate coalition |
|
||||
The small business coalition concentrates on opposition to govt regs of business |
|
||||
The small business coalition is less involved in foundations & research institutes than corporate coalition |
|
||||
The small business coalition does support the American Enterprise Institute & the Hoover Institute |
|
||||
C. THE LABOR / LIBERAL COALITION INCLUDES ORGANIZED LABOR AS WELL AS OTHER SOC MVMTS SUCH AS THE CIVIL RIGHTS MVMT, WOMEN'S MVMT, ENVL MVMT, & MORE | |||||
The labor / liberal coalition is a loose coalition & is the most diverse, & thus the most divided of the coalitions |
|
||||
The labor / liberal coalition includes organized labor, feminists, the civil rights movement, the envl mvmt, et al |
|
||||
Specific orgs w/in the labor / liberal coalition include the AFL CIO, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Urban League, the National Association for Women (NOW), the National Education Association (NEA), the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the Ralph Nader based orgs, et al |
|
||||
Domhoff developed an analysis of the key interest groups that shows that, indeed, contrary to what pluralists believe, one group controls the govt, benefits from govt policy, & wins controversial issues | |||||
See Also: A Comparison of Pluralist Theory & Power Elite Theory by Farley |
Links |
|
Links |
|||
Power elite theory has been formulated by C. Wright Mills & William Domhoff |
|
||||
|
Power elite theory is similar to pluralist theory, except that while pluralists hold that "the balance of interests" is intact, the power elite theorists hold that the balance of interests have failed |
|
|||
The power elite: |
|
||||
- are a small, very wealthy group |
|
||||
- foster a society where office holders have only the appearance of power; i.e., they are puppets |
|
||||
- exercise real power & decision making behind the scenes |
|
||||
- influence political leaders by foundations & public policy institutes which they fund | |||||
- struggle among themselves in what are often similar to "palace intrigues" |
|
||||
- in terms of class, are made up of the active, influential, powerful, members of the upper class & the corp. mgrs. | |||||
Power is gained: |
|
||||
- almost exclusively via corporate wealth |
|
||||
- via interlocking directorates, which are overlapping positions of power on corporate boards |
|
||||
- though the concentration of wealth via state capitalism |
|
||||
- via overlapping positions of power in govt, including the executive branch, the civil service, and the military | |||||
- by controlling the rules and regulations of state capitalism |
|
||||
- by keeping other classes pluralistic, i.e. fragmented |
|
||||
The power elite are largely the result of "cultural lag" and are fundamentally anti democratic and anti equalitarian |
|
||||
The group dynamics of the power elite demonstrates domination by a small leadership group |
|
||||
|
The control exercised by a small elite is not so much the characteristic of organization, but rather the result of a great concentration of wealth, which leads to a concentration of power |
|
|||
Control of corporations by the ruling elite rests on the ownership of large blocks of stock | |||||
P-E theory notes that the richest 1% of the US population owns over 50% of the stock (Gilbert & Kahl, 1982) | |||||
P-E theory notes that the richest 1% also owns over 28% of total wealth (Census, 1993e) | |||||
The ruling elite is a virtually closed social group w/ tremendous power | |||||
For Domhoff & P-E theory, the ruling elite attend exclusive preparatory schools, colleges, clubs & resorts, & intermarry largely w/ other members of the ruling class (Domhoff, 1983) | |||||
For Braun & P-E theory, While there are exceptional self made tycoons whose lives parallel the famous rags to riches novels by Horatio Alger, in reality, the heads of the largest corporations are almost exclusively born into their class position (Braun, 1991, 1997) |
|
|
|
|
|
The End
|