muchinsky-chapter-8-ot-ocd.pdf

lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Muchinsky Chapter 8 OT OCD Educational Psychology (Urdaneta City University) Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Web Resources n n n n n n n n 247 How employees are evaluated is related to how they are perceived in the workplace, which may include factors that have little to do with their performance. Standard sources of information about an employee’s job performance are objective production data (e.g., units produced), personnel data (e.g., days absent), and judgmental data (e.g., a supervisor’s rating). I /O psychologists have developed various types of rating scales to evaluate job performance and have identiﬁed rating errors that occur with their use. Individuals can be trained to make higher-quality ratings; thus the judgment of employees is a learnable skill. An organization may have inhibiting factors that inﬂuence a rater’s decision to give accurate and honest evaluations of employees. Appraisals of performance can be made by peers and subordinates (as well as oneself ) in addition to supervisors. 360-degree feedback is an approach to performance evaluation based on a conﬂuence of ratings from people at multiple organizational levels. The technique is used for both developmental and administrative purposes. In some cultures it is not acceptable to solicit evaluations from any source except the supervisor. Web Resources Visit our website at http://psychology.wadsworth.com/muchinsky8e, where you will ﬁnd online resources directly linked to your book, including tutorial quizzes, ﬂashcards, crossword puzzles, weblinks, and more! Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Chapter 81 Organizations and Organizational Change Chapter Outline Three Theories of Organizations Classical Theory Neoclassical Theory Systems Theory Overcoming Organizational Resistance to Change An Example of the Need for Organizational Change Case Study • The Relative Value of Frogs Versus Grass Organizational Structure Coordinating Mechanisms The Five Basic Parts of an Organization Components of Social Systems Roles The Changing Nature of Work: Jobs Versus Roles Norms Organizational Culture Chapter Summary Web Resources Learning Objectives n n n Field Note 1: A Clear Message Summary of Social System Components n n Global Organizations Cross-Cultural I /O Psychology: Four Dimensions on Which Cultures Can Differ n Explain the three major theories of organizations. Understand Mintzberg’s theory of organizational structure. Describe the components of social systems: roles, norms, and culture. Explain the creation of global organizations. Discuss the rationale of organizational change. Understand why employees resist change. Organizational Change Organization Development Reorganizing and Downsizing Field Note 2: Over-Downsizing Empowerment Six Sigma Field Note 3: Students as Customers? 248 Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Organizations and Organizational Change M 249 any academic disciplines have contributed to the study of organizations, including I /O psychology, sociology, economics, and political science. Their contributions tend to differ in the speciﬁc constructs that are investigated. The most common I /O psychological perspective is to examine individual behaviors and attitudes within an organizational context. First, it should be noted that it is not easy to grasp the meaning of an “organization.” Organizations are abstract entities, yet they are real and in fact can be considered “alive.” When an organization ceases to exist (such as a company that declares bankruptcy and goes out of business), it is not unusual to refer to the “death” of this formerly living entity. Authors have tried to use metaphors to understand the meaning of an organization (Morgan, 1997). Metaphors enhance the understanding of one concept by invoking reference to a more readily understood second concept. This technique has met with limited success in explaining organizations. One metaphor is to equate an organization with a person. People have a skeletal system and a circulatory system, concepts from physiology that are useful in understanding living organisms. Organizations possess characteristics (such as size and patterns of communication) that are general analogs of these physiological concepts; however, the metaphor is not totally accurate. What deﬁnes the boundary of where a person “ends” and his or her environment begins is our skin. Organizations, unlike humans, have no such boundarydeﬁning characteristic as skin. Organizations have loose or porous boundaries where they “end” and their environments (legal, social, political, economic, etc.) begin. If you ﬁnd that organizations are rather difﬁcult to understand as entities, you are not alone. It is a challenge to those academic disciplines that study organizations to ﬁnd useful ways to explain what they are. Davis and Powell (1992) noted that the study of organizations is relatively new, having begun in the 1950s. During that time period psychologists began to appreciate how much inﬂuence organizations exerted on the behavior of employees. It will be recalled from Chapter 1 that it wasn’t until 1970 that the profession of “industrial” psychology ofﬁcially became “industrial /organizational” psychology, thus deﬁning the scope of I /O psychology as we know it today. Formal recognition of the O in I /O psychology compelled us to gain a better understanding of the social bases of behavior. This chapter will explain how an organization inﬂuences and shapes the behavior of its members. The concepts that will be examined (that is, the unit of analysis) shift from the individual to larger social collectivities. One of the dominant themes of I /O psychology today is the need to be responsive and adaptable to changing conditions. This “need” has been described at both the individual level (in terms of personal ﬂexibility) and the job level (continually evolving jobs require new tasks to be performed). This need to respond to change is particularly acute at the organizational level. Organizations are designed or created to perform work. As will be discussed in this chapter, organizations have both structural (how work processes are arranged) and social (the pattern of interactions among employees) components. As the work the organization performs is altered in response to external economic pressures, the organization must also change its structural and social components. Organizations are under constant pressure to change in response to their changing environment. Helping organizations change is one of the major activities of I /O psychologists who work for consulting ﬁrms and businesses. As will be seen in this chapter, it is not easy to change the way an organization functions. Before the topic of organizational change is addressed, it is necessary to discuss how organizations operate. Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 250 Chapter 8 Organizations and Organizational Change Three Theories of Organizations Organization A coordinated group of people who perform tasks to produce goods or services, colloquially referred to as companies. It is probably easier to state why organizations exist than to deﬁne what they are. In their simplest form, they exist as vehicles for accomplishing goals and objectives; that is, organizations are collectivities of parts that cannot accomplish their goals as effectively if they operate separately. How one chooses to examine the organizing process produces the various schools of thought or theories about organizations. In my opinion, there are three major schools of thought about organizations, with many variations and emphases (Scott, 1992): the classical, neoclassical, and systems theories of organization. These schools of thought take markedly different views of the same phenomenon. Classical Theory Classical theory of organizations A theory developed in the early 20th century that described the form and structure of organizations. Classical theory, which emerged in the ﬁrst few decades of the 20th century, focuses mainly on structural relationships in organizations. Classical theory begins with a statement of the basic ingredients of any organization and then addresses how the organization should best be structured to accomplish its objectives. There are four basic components to any organization: 1. A system of differentiated activities. All organizations are composed of the activities and functions performed in them and the relationships among these activities and functions. A formal organization emerges when these activities are linked together. 2. People. Although organizations are composed of activities and functions, people perform tasks and exercise authority. 3. Cooperation toward a goal. Cooperation must exist among the people performing their various activities to achieve a unity of purpose in pursuit of their common goals. 4. Authority. Authority is established through superior–subordinate relationships, and such authority is needed to ensure cooperation among people pursuing their goals. Given that four ingredients are the basis of any organization, classical theory addresses the various structural properties by which the organization should best reach its goals. Four major structural principles are the hallmarks in the history of organizational theory. Functional principle The concept that organizations should be divided into units that perform similar functions. Functional Principle. The functional principle is the concept behind division of labor; that is, organizations should be divided into units that perform similar functions. Work is broken down to provide clear areas of specialization, which in turn improves the organization’s overall performance. Similar work activities are often organized into departments, which enhances coordination of activities and permits more effective supervision and a more rational ﬂow of work. It is the functional principle that accounts for the grouping of work functions into such units as production, sales, engineering, ﬁnance, and so on; these labels describe the primary nature of the work performed within each unit. The functional principle relates to the horizontal growth of the organization—that is, the formation of new functional units along the horizontal dimension. Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Three Theories of Organizations 251 The functional process The scalar process Figure 8-1 Pyramid of organization Source: From Organization Theory: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis (p. 32) by W. G. Scott, T. R. Mitchell, and P. H. Birnbaum, 1981, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Reprinted by permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies. Scalar principle The concept that organizations are structured by a chain of command that grows with increasing levels of authority. Unity of command The concept that each subordinate should be accountable to only one supervisor. Line/staff principle The concept of differentiating organizational work into line and staff functions. Line functions Organizational work that directly meets the major goals of an organization. Staff functions Organizational work that supports line activities Span-of-control principle The concept that refers to the number of subordinates a manager is responsible for supervising. Scalar Principle. The scalar principle deals with the organization’s vertical growth and refers to the chain of command that grows with levels added to the organization. Each level has its own degree of authority and responsibility for meeting organizational goals, with higher levels having more responsibility. Each subordinate should be accountable to only one superior, a tenet referred to as the unity of command. Classical theorists thought the best way to overcome organizational fragmentation caused by division of labor was through a well-designed chain of command. Coordination among factions is achieved by people occupying positions of command in a hierarchy. Figure 8-1 shows a graphic representation of both the functional and scalar principles. Line/Staff Principle. One way to differentiate organizational work functions is by whether they are line or staff. Line functions have the primary responsibility for meeting the major goals of the organization, like the production department in a manufacturing organization. Staff functions support the line’s activities but are regarded as subsidiary in overall importance to line functions. Typical staff functions are personnel and quality control. That is, although it is important to have good employees and to inspect products for their quality, the organization was not created to provide people with jobs or products to inspect. It was created to manufacture products (a line function), and personnel and quality control are only two staff functions designed to support this larger goal. Span-of-Control Principle. The span-of-control principle refers to the number of subordinates a manager is responsible for supervising. A “small” span of control is 2 subordinates; a “large” span of control might be 15. Large spans of control produce ﬂat organizations (that is, few levels between the top and bottom of the organization); small spans of control produce tall organizations (that is, many levels). Figure 8-2 is a diagram showing how the span of control affects the shape of the organization. Classical theory is credited with providing the structural anatomy of organizations. It was the ﬁrst major attempt to articulate the form and substance of organizations in a Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 252 Chapter 8 Organizations and Organizational Change Tall structure Flat structure X X X XX X XXXXXXXXXX X X XX X XX Levels . . . . . 4 Span . . . . . . 2 X XX Levels . . . . . 2 Span . . . . . 10 Figure 8-2 Span of control and organizational structure Source: From Organization Theory: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis (p. 34) by W. G. Scott, T. R. Mitchell, and P. H. Birnbaum, 1981, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Reprinted by permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies. comprehensive fashion. There is little that is “psychological” about this view of organizations; indeed, none of the classical organizational theorists were psychologists. The inﬂuence of psychology became apparent in neoclassical theory, the next school of thought. Nevertheless, although current organizational researchers regard classical theory as antiquated, its four principles are deeply ingrained in the real-life structure of organizations. Problems of line/staff relationships, number of organizational levels, division of labor, coordination, and spans of control are still of major concern today. Further thinking about organizations occurred because organizations were more complex than the four classical principles suggested. This desire to add richness and realism to organizational theory gave rise to neoclassical theory. Neoclassical Theory Neoclasical theory of organizations A theory developed in the 1950s that described psychological or behavioral issues associated with organizations. Neoclassical theory was born in the 1950s, but its origins go back to the ﬁndings from the Hawthorne studies. It was identiﬁed with scholars who recognized the deﬁciencies in the classical school of thought. In fact, the name neoclassical connotes a modernization or updating of the original (classical) theory, while still acknowledging its contributions. It is a misnomer to call neoclassical theory a “theory” because there really is no formal theory. Rather, it is a recognition of psychological and behavioral issues that question the rigidity with which the classical principles were originally stated. The neoclassicists examined the four major principles of classical theory and found evidence that challenged their apparent unassailability. This evidence was based primarily on either psychological research or an examination of real-life organizational problems. The neoclassicists noted that while division of labor causes functional interdependence among work activities, it also depersonalizes these activities so that the individual ﬁnds little meaning in them. That is, people develop a sense of alienation from highly repetitive work, which ultimately results in dissatisfaction with their work. In turn, this dissatisfaction can result in decreased efﬁciency caused by lowered productivity and increased absence. In short, the neoclassicists argued for less rigid division of labor and for more “humanistic” work in which people derive a sense of value and meaning from their jobs. The scalar principle was questioned on the grounds that other systems operate on people in organizations besides those imposed by formal superior–subordinate relationships. Individuals are inﬂuenced by interpersonal activities that extend well beyond those prescribed by the formal organizational structure. In short, although the scalar principle Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Three Theories of Organizations 253 prescribes formal lines of authority, in reality many sources operating in an organization inﬂuence the individual. The line/staff principle was perhaps the easiest for neoclassicists to challenge. The black-and-white theoretical distinction between line and staff functions is not always so clear in practice. Take, for example, the sales function. A manufacturing company’s purpose is indeed to produce, but if it does not sell what it produces, the company cannot survive. What, then, is the sales function—a major line function or an ancillary staff function? The neoclassicists illustrated that many staff functions are critical to the success of the organization, so the value of the distinction between line and staff is not so great as originally proposed. Finally, determining a satisfactory span of control seems far more complex than picking a number. The neoclassicists noted it depends on such issues as the supervisor’s managerial ability (poor managers cannot supervise many subordinates) and the intensity of the needed supervision (one could effectively manage many more subordinates who do not require much direction than those who do require intensive direction). That is, such psychological factors as leadership style and capacity greatly inﬂuence the determination of effective spans of control. The primary contribution of neoclassical theory was to reveal that the principles proposed by classical theory were not as universally applicable and simple as originally formulated. The neoclassicists drew heavily on behavioral research that revealed the importance of individual differences. They did not overtly reject classical theory. Rather than attempting to change the theory, they tried to make it ﬁt the realities of human behavior in organizations. However, the neoclassicists were limited by basing their conceptualization about organizations on the classical perspective. By the mid-1960s, it became apparent that an entirely new approach to thinking about organizations was necessary. Organizations were more complex than even the neoclassicists portrayed them; this led to the formation of a radically different school of thought called systems theory. Systems Theory Systems theory A theory developed in the 1970s that described organizations in terms of interdependent components that form a system. Modern organization theory adopts a complex, dynamic view of organizations called the “systems approach.” Systems theory had its origins in the biological sciences and was modiﬁed to meet the needs of organizational theory (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Katz and Kahn (1978) were among the early proponents of thinking about organizations as a series of interlocking systems. Systems theory views an organization as existing in an interdependent relationship with its environment: “It is impossible to understand individual behavior or the activities of small groups apart from the social system in which they interact. A complex organization is a social system; the various discrete segments and functions in it do not behave as isolated elements. All parts affect all other parts. Every action has repercussions throughout the organization, because all of its elements are linked” (Scott, Mitchell, & Birnbaum, 1981, p. 44). In fact, the idea that all parts of the system are interdependent is the key to the systems approach. All of the parts and their interrelatedness make up the “system,” from which the theory gets its name. Systems theory asserts that an organizational system is composed of these ﬁve parts: 1. Individuals. Individuals bring their own personalities, abilities, and attitudes with them to the organization, which inﬂuence what they hope to attain by participating in the system. Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 254 Chapter 8 Organizations and Organizational Change The System A Internal stability E B Growth Adaptability D C Key: 1. Circles represent parts of the system. 2. Broken lines represent intrapart interactions, i.e., individuals with other individuals. 3. Solid lines represent interpart interaction. 4. Both the solid and broken lines are the processes that tie the parts of the system together. Figure 8-3 The framework of systems analysis Source: From Organization Theory: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis (p. 48) by W. G. Scott, T. R. Mitchell, and P. H. Birnbaum, 1981, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Reprinted by permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies. 2. Formal organization. The formal organization is the interrelated pattern of jobs that provides the structure of the system. 3. Small groups. Individuals do not work in isolation but become members of small groups as a way to facilitate their own adaptability within the system. 4. Status and role. Status and role differences exist among jobs within an organization and deﬁne the behavior of individuals within the system. 5. Physical setting. This is the external physical environment and the degree of technology that characterizes the organization. Figure 8-3 illustrates the ﬁve parts of the system and their interrelatedness. Complex interactions exist among all parts of the system. Individuals interact to form small groups, members of the groups are differentiated by status and roles, the physical environment affects the behavior of individuals and groups, and all exist within the framework provided by the formal organization. With all of these parts making up the system, it is necessary to have a means to provide coordination and linkage among them. Such functions are accomplished through communication and decision making; they permit the various parts of the system to “talk” to each other. Organizational communication occurs through a series of networks that often bear little resemblance to formal lines of authority. Similarly, decisions are often made in ways that deviate from formal lines of authority. That is, the reality of how organizations actually conduct themselves is usually quite different from the principles established by classical organizational theory. Also, the Achilles’ heel of most large orDownloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Organizational Structure 255 ganizations is failure to communicate. This makes considerable sense, given the systems perspective of organizations, because communication is the means by which the system can be responsive to its environment. Finally, systems theory instructs us that the parts and interactions of a system do not exist for themselves. Rather, they exist to meet the system’s larger goals, which are stability, growth, and adaptability. A living organism has to be stable in the sense that its parts are harmoniously integrated. Growth reﬂects a sense of vitality and vigor. Adaptability is critical if the organism is to respond to environmental changes because adaptability enables the organism to survive in times of rapid change. Thus a healthy, successful organization is not only “effective” in meeting its business objectives but also stable, growing, and adaptable. These are the characteristics of all living organisms, be they organizations, animals, plants, or societies. Systems theory offers a radical departure from the classical and neoclassical schools of thought. Systems theory views organizations as any other form of living organism. The purpose of an organization is to reach stability, to grow, and to adapt, as all living organisms must do to survive. Note the abstractness of systems theory. There are no direct references to anything quite as simple as a span of control, for example. This abstractness is deliberate because only at some degree of generality can one attempt to equate such diverse entities as organizations, plants, and animals. Modern organizational theorists believe that an understanding of something as complex as an organization requires the type of conceptualizations offered by systems theory. A systems perspective of organizations permits us to understand phenomena of organizational life that earlier theories would not permit. Despite the distinctiveness of the three schools of thought on organizations, each school offered critical concepts that are of great relevance today. That is, these schools are more than historical milemarkers in the evolution of organizational theory. In particular, the concept of small groups from systems theory has been greatly ampliﬁed to provide a primary focal point of interest, the work team. The concept of work teams and their signiﬁcance will be discussed in the next chapter. Organizational Structure Mintzberg (1983) offered a comprehensive and lucid explanation of how organizations evolve to reach a certain form and shape. We refer to these characteristics as the “structure” or formal component of an organization. Various types of structure are possible, and an organization continuously seeks to ﬁnd a structure that is an optimal match to its environment. That is, the structure of an organization is an adaptive mechanism that permits the organization to function in its surroundings. Organizations that have maladaptive structures will ultimately cease to exist. Because individuals assume roles within organizations, individuals (most notably employees) feel the brunt of change caused by the continuing evolution of an organization’s structure. It is in this regard that I /O psychology is involved in matters of organizational structure. Structure The arrangement of work functions within an organization designed to achieve efficiency and control. Coordinating Mechanisms Mintzberg (1983) deﬁned the structure of an organization as “the sum total of the ways in which its labor is divided into distinct tasks and then its coordination is achieved among these tasks” (p. 2). Although many structures are possible for an organization, Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 256 Chapter 8 Organizations and Organizational Change relatively few are effective structures for a particular organization. Five coordinating mechanisms have been proposed, and these mechanisms are the processes that organizations use to function. 1. Mutual adjustment. “Mutual adjustment achieves the coordination of work by the simple process of informal communication” (p. 4) among employees. As the term implies, it is the process by which employees coordinate their efforts to produce an outcome. Mintzberg cited two people paddling a canoe as an example of the mutual adjustment between individuals needed to propel the canoe through water. 2. Direct supervision. According to Mintzberg, “Direct supervision achieves coordination by having one person take responsibility for the work of others, issuing instructions to them and monitoring their actions” (p. 4). As an organization outgrows its simplest state, it turns to this second mechanism of coordination. In effect one brain coordinates several hands, such as the coxswain (stroke caller) of a sixperson rowing crew. 3. Standardization of work processes. Another mechanism to achieve coordination is to standardize or specify work processes. The production assembly line of a manufacturing company is an example. A worker inserts a bolt into a holed piece of metal. There is only one action to perform, and there is no room for individual discretion in how the work is performed. The work is designed in such a way that the same process is followed no matter who is performing the job. 4. Standardization of work output. Yet another mechanism to achieve coordination is to standardize or specify the product of the work to be performed. The fastfood industry is an example. A hamburger ordered from a particular fast-food vendor should look and taste the same whether it was purchased in the day or at night, in July or December, in Cleveland or San Diego. The work is designed in such a way that the same output is achieved irrespective of differences in time or location. 5. Standardization of skills and knowledge. Finally, Mintzberg stated that coordination among work activities can be attained by specifying in advance the knowledge, skills, and training required to perform the work. In this case coordination is achieved before the work is undertaken. Organizations institute training programs for employees to standardize the skills needed to perform work, thereby controlling and coordinating the work. For example, there is rarely communication between an anesthesiologist and a surgeon while removing an appendix in an operating room. As a result of standardized medical training, the two medical specialists do not need to engage in much communication during the course of the surgical operation. According to Mintzberg (1983), these ﬁve coordinating mechanisms manifest themselves in a rough order. Mutual adjustment sufﬁces as a coordinating mechanism only if the work processes are rather routine. As the work to be performed becomes more complicated, the most effective means of coordination shifts to direct supervision. As work becomes still more complex, the underlying coordinating mechanism shifts to standardization of work processes, then outputs, and ﬁnally skills. A person working alone has no need for any coordinating mechanisms. The addition of a second person requires the two individuals to adjust to each other. Mintzberg offered this description of the progression to the other coordinating mechanisms. “As the work becomes more involved, another major transition tends to occur—toward standardization. When the tasks are simple and Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Organizational Structure 257 routine, the organization is tempted to rely on the standardization of the work processes themselves. But more complex work may preclude this, forcing the organization to turn to standardization of the outputs—specifying the results of the work but leaving the choice of the process to the worker. In very complex work, on the other hand, the outputs often cannot be standardized either, and so the organization must settle for standardizing the skills of the worker, if possible” (p. 7). It is not necessary or even feasible for an organization to achieve coordination by using a single coordinating mechanism. In reality, most organizations use all ﬁve, but to varying degrees. Irrespective of whether an organization is large or small, is engaged in complex or simple work activities, it will always be necessary to have some degree of mutual adjustment and direct supervision. Informal communication and leadership are needed in all types of organizations. Organizations often develop codiﬁed statements (company rules, policy and procedure manuals, etc.) to facilitate the standardization of work processes. The standardization of work output is evidenced by issuing standards for product speciﬁcation (as in a manufacturing company) or the time needed to perform a service (as delivering a package in a shipping company). Finally, the standardization of knowledge and skills can be achieved by requiring employees to have attained a certain level of education (e.g., a Master’s degree in accounting) or professional licensure (e.g., being a Certiﬁed Public Accountant— CPA). Classical organization theory emphasized both direct supervision and standardization as coordinating mechanisms. The concepts of span of control, line/staff functions, and unity of command apply to the components of an organization’s formal structure. Frederick Taylor sought to achieve coordination through standardization, specifying the work operations (such as body movements and when to take work breaks) of pig-iron handlers and coal shovelers. According to scholars in the beginning of the 20th century, organizational structure deﬁned a set of ofﬁcial, standardized work relationships built around a tight system of formal authority. However, neoclassical organizational theory revealed the signiﬁcance of the most primary means of attaining coordination, mutual adjustment. That is, other activities take place among workers that are not in line with the ofﬁcial organizational structure. Thus the presence of unofﬁcial relationships within work groups (an informal structure) established that mutual adjustment serves as an important coordinating mechanism in all organizations. In fact, as will be seen in Chapter 11, the mechanism of standardization, a long-standing hallmark of formal organizational structure, was actually detrimental to the psychological and physical health of the worker. It was not until the creation of systems theory that a balance between the classical and neoclassical perspectives was attained and all ﬁve coordinating mechanisms were regarded as viable. The Five Basic Parts of an Organization1 Consistent with systems theory, organizations are structured to deﬁne the interrelationships among the parts of the systems. Mintzberg proposed that all organizations consist of ﬁve basic parts, as shown in Figure 8-4. 1 Mintzberg (1983) noted that the number ﬁve reappears in the study of organizational structure (and is the basis of his book’s title, Structure in Fives). Although the number ﬁve is not magical, it is the number of concepts used to explain various aspects of organizational structure. The interested reader is encouraged to read the profound insights Mintzberg offered in his book about organizational structure. Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 258 Chapter 8 Organizations and Organizational Change Strategic apex Technostructure Middle line Support staff Operating core Figure 8-4 The five basic parts of an organization Source: From Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, 1st ed., by H. Mintzberg, © 1983. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. 1. Operating core. The operating core of an organization consists of those employees who are responsible for conducting the basic work duties that give the organization its deﬁning purpose. In a manufacturing organization, it is the employees who transform raw goods (e.g., cloth) into a sellable product (e.g., apparel). In a service organization (as a dry cleaning store), it is the employees who perform vital work functions (e.g., transform dirty clothes into clean clothes). 2. Strategic apex. The strategic apex is responsible for the overall success of the entire organization. The strategic apex is associated with the executive leadership of the organization. These employees have the responsibility and authority to ensure that the larger goals of the organization are being met. Mintzberg referred to the strategic apex as the “brain” of the organization. 3. Middle line. The middle line represents those employees who have the dayto-day authority for ensuring that the overall goals set by the strategic apex are being carried out by the operating core. The middle line embodies the coordinating mechanism of direct supervision. They are mid-level bosses, ranging from senior managers down to ﬁrst-level supervisors. The chain of command that starts at the strategic apex and ends at the operating core runs directly through the middle line. An organizational hierarchy is created by the various levels that separate the operating core from the strategic apex. 4. Technostructure. The technostructure is those employees who possess speciﬁc technical expertise that facilitates the overall operation of the organization. These employees are specialists in areas of business that inﬂuence the organization, but these people do not perform the mainstream work of the organization (the operating core) nor are they members of top management (the strategic apex). ExamDownloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Components of Social Systems 259 ples include such technical areas of expertise as accounting, human resources, information technology, and law. 5. Support staff. The support staff provides services that aid the basic mission of the organization and typically includes the mailroom, switchboard, security, and janitorial services. Sometimes the members of the support staff and the technostructure are collectively regarded as meeting the “staff ” function of an organization (vis-à-vis the line/staff distinction). However, there is a major distinction between the technostructure and the support staff. The members of the technostructure give advice to the organization, while the support staff performs services. Likewise, the technostructure and the support staff rely on different coordinating mechanisms. The technostructure relies primarily on the standardization of knowledge and skills (through education and training requirements of its members), while the support staff relies primarily on the standardization of work processes (as the uniform delivery of mail within the organization). In many organizations decision-making power is highly centralized; that is, it ﬂows from the strategic apex, down through the middle line of the hierarchy, to the operating core. Centralization is the tightest means of coordinating decision making in the organization. Decisions are made by one person and then implemented through direct supervision. However, there can exist strong pressures to decentralize, to push decisionmaking power down lower in the organizational hierarchy. Mintzberg cited three reasons. First, it is not feasible for members of the strategic apex to make every decision pertaining to the operation of the company. Not every decision requires executive input; thus individuals in the middle line are authorized to make certain types of decisions within a deﬁned scope. Second, in a complex organizational hierarchy, with many levels between the bottom and top of the organization and an extended chain of command, decisions often cannot be made quickly. Some organizational decisions may lend themselves to a slow process of deliberation; however, other decisions must be made quickly. The ﬂow of information up to the strategic apex and then back down may take too much time for decisions that are urgent. Finally, the capacity and authority for decision making among employees at lower levels of the organization are appealing to intelligent individuals. The power to make such decisions is motivating, as the organization entrusts employees to act in its best interests. Learning to become a good decision maker is a critical skill in rising to higher levels in the organization. As Mintzberg cautioned, however, it is best to think of centralization and decentralization as opposite ends of a decision-making continuum. In reality most organizations manifest some of the properties of both, with one typically being more prominent within a single organization. Components of Social Systems Social system The human components of a work organization that influence the behavior of individuals and groups. A social system is a structuring of events or happenings; it has no formal structure apart from its functioning. Physical or biological systems (cars or human beings) have structures that can be identiﬁed even when they are not functioning (electrical or skeleton structures); that is, they have both an anatomy and a physiology. A social system has no anatomy in this sense. When a social system stops functioning, no identiﬁable structure remains. It is hard for us to think of social systems as having no tangible anatomy because it Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 260 Chapter 8 Organizations and Organizational Change is easier to understand concepts that have concrete and simple components. Social systems do indeed have components, but they are not concrete. They are sometimes referred to as the informal component of an organization. We will examine three of them —roles, norms, and culture—while recognizing that they are abstract. Roles Role A set of expectations about appropriate behavior in a position. When an employee enters an organization, there is much for that person to learn: expected performance levels, recognition of superiors, dress codes, and time demands. Roles ease the learning process. Roles are usually deﬁned as the expectations of others about appropriate behavior in a speciﬁc position. Each of us plays several roles simultaneously (parent, employee, club member, and so on), but the focus here will be on jobrelated roles (see The Changing Nature of Work: Jobs Versus Roles). Scott et al. (1981) listed ﬁve important aspects of roles. First, they are impersonal; the position itself determines the expectations, not the individual. Second, roles are related to task behavior. An organizational role is the expected behaviors for a particular job. Third, roles can be difﬁcult to pin down. The problem is deﬁning who determines what The Changing Nature of Work: Jobs Versus Roles T he concept of a role is useful for understanding the diminishing value of a job as a means to explaining work. Traditionally a job was defined by a fairly static set of tasks to be performed. An employee was responsible for performing these tasks. Asking an employee to perform tasks outside of the job might be met with the response “That’s not my job.” The word job will not soon disappear from our work vocabulary, nor will its implied meaning with regard to such matters as compensation and level of authority. However, the meaning of a job in explaining what one does at work is losing its clarity. Instead of a set of tasks to be performed, employees might think of work as a series of roles they must fill simultaneously. Consider the area of customer service. The primary responsibility for someone in this position is to tend to a customer’s needs. Those needs might be met by providing information to a customer, responding to problems of a technical nature, getting the customer in touch with other parties, scheduling the customer to receive some service, and so on. One of the employee’s roles is helping the customer, although the variety of ways (tasks) this might be done could be wide. Another role the employee has is to communicate back to management about the most commonly encountered customer problems and problems that are difficult to solve. Yet another role for the employee might be as a liaison to other units within the organization (such as billing or credit) who have specialized knowledge and skill in resolving certain types of issues. Thus the nature of the employee’s work is to keep customers satisfied so they continue to do business with the organization. The employee must contact other individuals or units within the organization to help facilitate that outcome. The role of face-to-face customer contact may call for emotional labor skills (“service with a smile”). The role of liaison to management may call for diagnostic reasoning skills pertaining to the types of problems that repeatedly occur. Rather than thinking of work as performing a “job,” another view is to think of an employee as one who helps meet the larger goals of the company by adding value through serving in different roles. Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Components of Social Systems 261 Feedback Stage 1 Group expectations for a particular position Stage 2 Communication about expectations Stage 3 Perceived expectations about role Stage 4 Actual role behavior Figure 8-5 The role episode Source: From Organization Theory: A Structural and Behavioral Analysis (p. 103) by W. G. Scott, T. R. Mitchell, and P. H. Birnbaum, 1981, Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Reprinted by permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies. is expected. Because other people deﬁne our roles, opinions differ over what our role should be. How we see our role, how others see our role, and what we actually do may differ. Fourth, roles are learned quickly and can produce major behavior changes. Fifth, roles and jobs are not the same; a person in one job might play several roles. We learn our role through a role episode, as Figure 8-5 shows. In stage 1 group members have expectations about job performance, which they communicate in stage 2 either formally or by having the role occupant observe others in similar roles. In stage 3, the role occupant behaves as he or she believes is appropriate. If the behavior (stage 4) differs widely from the group’s expectations (stage 1), the occupant gets feedback from the group regarding the discrepancy. This is intended to alter behavior toward group expectations. The role episode is ongoing. Expectations may change over time, as might the employee’s behavior. Another aspect is role differentiation. This is the extent to which different roles are performed by employees in the same subgroup. One person’s job might be to maintain good group relations, such as a work-unit coordinator. His or her role might thus require providing emotional or interpersonal support to others. Another’s role might be to set schedules, agendas, and meet deadlines; such a person is usually an administrator. When all the roles in a work group ﬁt together like the pieces of a puzzle, the result is a smoothly running, effective group. However, all the pieces may not ﬁt together. Chapter 11 will examine how some organizational pressures produce role problems. Norms Norm A set of shared group expectations about appropriate behavior. Norms are shared group expectations about appropriate behavior. Whereas roles deﬁne what is appropriate for a particular job, norms deﬁne acceptable group behavior. Roles differentiate positions; norms establish the behavior expected of everyone in the group, such as when employees take coffee breaks, how much they produce, when they stop for Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 262 Chapter 8 Organizations and Organizational Change the day, and what they wear. Norms are unwritten rules that govern behavior. A nosmoking sign is not a norm but a formal written rule of behavior. If employees smoke despite the sign, there is a norm that sanctions such behavior in spite of the formal rule. Norms have several important properties. First, there is “oughtness” or “shouldness”—that is, prescriptions for behavior. Second, norms are usually more obvious for behavior judged to be important for the group. A norm might exist for the time employees stop work before lunch, but there probably is no norm about what employees eat. Third, norms are enforced by the group. Much expected behavior is monitored and enforced through formal rules and procedures. With norms, group members regulate behavior. Sometimes formal rules and group norms clash (Scott et al. 1981). The no-smoking rule and the group norm sanctioning smoking are an example. Unless the organization imposes sanctions on smokers (that is, rule breakers), the group norm probably prevails. Finally, the degree that norms are shared and the degree that deviation is acceptable vary. Not all smokers might smoke in proscribed areas, and those who do not might be as accepted by the group as those who do. Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Components of Social Systems 263 There is a three-step process for developing and communicating norms. The norm must ﬁrst be deﬁned and communicated. This can be done either explicitly (“Here is the way we do things around here”) or implicitly (the desired behavior is observed). Second, the group must be able to monitor behavior and judge whether the norm is being followed. Third, the group must be able to reward conformity and punish nonconformity. Conformity enhances the predictability of behavior within the group, which in turn promotes feelings of group cohesion (Scott et al. 1981). Compliance with norms is enforced by positive reinforcement or punishment. Positive reinforcement can be praise or inclusion in group activities. Punishment can be a dirty look, a snide remark, or actual physical abuse. (Workers who exceeded the group norm for productivity in the Hawthorne studies were hit on the arm, which was called “binging.”) Another form of punishment is exclusion from group activities. The group often tries to convince the nonconforming employee (referred to as a deviant) to change his or her behavior. The group tries to alter the deviant’s opinion through increased communication, verbal or nonverbal. The clearer and more important the norm and the more cohesive the group, the greater the pressure. Eventually, the deviant either changes or is rejected. If rejected, the deviant becomes an isolate, and the pressure to conform stops. Because the group may need the isolate to perform work tasks, they usually reach a truce; the isolate is tolerated at work but excluded from group activities and relationships. Obviously the isolate can quit the job and try to ﬁnd a better match between his or her values and a group. Finally, norms are not always contrary to formal organization rules or independent of them. Sometimes norms greatly promote organization goals. For example, there may be a norm against leaving for home before a certain amount of work has been done. Although quitting time is 5:00 p.m., the group may expect employees to stay until 5:15 or 5:30 to ﬁnish a certain task. In this case, the deviant is one who conforms to the formal rule (that is, leaving at 5:00 p.m.) instead of the group norm. When group norms and organization goals are complementary, high degrees of effectiveness can result. Organizational Culture Culture The language, values, attitudes, beliefs, and customs of an organization. The concept of culture was originally proposed by anthropologists to describe societies, but we have also found it useful to describe organizations. Culture is the languages, values, attitudes, beliefs, and customs of an organization. As can be inferred, it represents a complex pattern of variables that, when taken collectively, gives each organization its unique “ﬂavor.” Several deﬁnitions of organizational culture have been proposed, but the most straightforward was offered by Deal and Kennedy (1982): “The way we do things around here.” Ostroff, Kinicki, and Tamkins (2003) described the culture of an organization as having three layers. These three layers can be examined in any social collectivity, including a business organization, a social organization (e.g., a club), a church, or even a family. 1. Observable artifacts. Artifacts are the surface-level actions that can be observed from which some deeper meaning or interpretation can be drawn about the organization. Trice and Beyer (1993) identiﬁed four major categories of cultural artifacts: symbols (e.g., physical objects or locations); language (e.g., jargon, slang, gestures, humor, gossip, and rumors); narratives (e.g., stories, legends, and myths Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 264 Chapter 8 Organizations and Organizational Change about the organization); and practices (e.g., rituals, taboos, and ceremonies). Although these artifacts are easy to observe, they are not necessarily easy to interpret or understand. 2. Espoused values. Espoused values are those beliefs or concepts that are speciﬁcally endorsed by management or the organization at large. Organizations per se do not possess values, but rather key individual leaders within the organization espouse these values. Two examples are “Safety is our top priority” and “We respect the opinions of all our employees.” Enacted values are those that are converted into employee behavior. A perceived difference between espoused and enacted values can be a source of cynicism among employees. For example, despite the espoused values, actual safety efforts may be haphazard or employees may be criticized for speaking out. 3. Basic assumptions. Basic assumptions are unobservable and are at the core of the organization. They frequently start out as values but over time become so deeply ingrained that they are taken for granted. Basic assumptions are rarely confronted or debated and are extremely difﬁcult to change. According to Ostroff et al., “Challenging basic assumptions produces anxiety and defensiveness because they provide security through their ability to deﬁne what employees should pay attention to, how they should react emotionally, and what actions they should take in various kinds of situations” (p. 569). Questioning a university about the value of education in society would represent a challenge to a basic assumption of academic institutions. Culture may also be communicated through other channels, such as in-house memos, ofﬁcial policies, statements of corporate philosophy, and any other means of value expression (see Field Note 1). Schein (1996) asserted that understanding the culture of an organization is critical to making sense of the behavior observed in the organization. A narrow description of behavior, divorced from the cultural context in which it occurs, is of limited value for understanding the organization. For example, Pratt and Rafaeli (1997) examined the types of clothes worn by members of a hospital staff to understand how the hospital views itself. They found that the manner of dress among the staff was symbolic of their sense of organizational identity. Furthermore, differing views among staff members about dress were deeply felt. The authors offered the following two quotes from nurses working in the hospital: Head nurse of a rehabilitation unit: “Patients who wear pajamas and see hospital garb around them think of themselves as sick. If they and their caretakers wear street clothes, patients will think of themselves as moving out of the sick role and into rehabilitation. They will be ready for life outside the hospital. This is the rehab philosophy, and this is what makes this unit unique.” [emphasis added] Nurse on the evening shift of the same unit: “We are medical and health professionals. We do professional work. We take care of sick patients, we deal with their bodily ﬂuids and get their slime all over us. So we should all look like medical professionals; we should be dressed in scrubs.” [emphasis added] (Pratt & Rafaeli, 1997, p. 862) Schneider (1996) believes it is the people who populate the organization who most deﬁne its culture. That is, people (e.g., employees) are not actors who ﬁll predetermined Downloaded by Jan Patrick Gutierrez ([email protected]) lOMoARcPSD|34545720 Components of Social Systems Field Note 1 265 A Clear Message Organizational culture embraces the values and character of the organization. Sometimes the culture of an organization is communicated in a subtle way, and at other times the communication is loud and unambiguous. I had a client company that was founded about 90 years ago. It started through the efforts of one man who created the company when he was about 30 and served as the company’s president until his death at age 80. The company manufactures world-class building supplies. Today its products are sold nationally, and the company employs about 3,000 people. The company was founded on the value of making the ﬁnest product in the market, for which it charges a high price. The marketing orientation is strictly top of the line—if you want the best, you think of this company. The culture of the organization today follows the philosophy of the founder. The founder and his philosophy are so revered that the company turned his small ofﬁce into something of a shrine. Cordoned off with a thick velvet rope, the ofﬁce is preserved as it was when the founder was leading the company. The ofﬁce telephone, lamp, desk, chair, briefcase, and fountain pen are all period pieces. The decor of the ofﬁce is not ostentatious or sumptuous but rather understated elegance, like the company’s products. A 1952 calendar is hanging on the wall. Although the ofﬁce is no longer in active use, it serves an extremely valuable purpose for the company. It is a constant reminder, a physical embodiment, of the person whose values continue to guide the company today, long after his death. The orientation for all new employees includes a visit to this ofﬁce as a way of communicating the heritage of the company. It doesn’t take long for anyone (including an outsider like me) to grasp what this company is all about. Sometimes you have to dig to unearth the culture of an organization. Not this one. roles in an established culture, but rather it is the personalities, values, and interests of these people over time that make the organization what it is. Schneider (1987) proposed what he calls the attraction–selection–attrition (ASA) cycle. The ASA cycle proposes that people with similar personalities and values are drawn to (attraction) certain organizations and hired into these organizations (selection), and people who don’t ﬁt into the pattern of shared values eventually leave the organization (attrition). This process occurs over time, however, not immediately. There can also be differences among people in the organization in values that are not important. As in the example of the two nurses and their manner of dress, if dress is a deeply held value within the hospital unit, then the ASA cycle would predict the attrition of the nurse whose view is not accepted by the rest of the unit. In support of the hypothesis that organizations attract people with relatively homogeneous personalities, Schneider et al. (1998) found that organizations differ in the modal personality types of their employees. The authors speculated that organizations with different modal personalities may well differ in their organizational cultures and structures. Further evidence of organizations stafﬁng themselves with employees who possess similar personality characteristics was reported by Schaubroeck, Ganster, and J

muchinsky-chapter-8-ot-ocd.pdf

Related

Transcript

Tags

Upgrade to continue