Organizational Perspectives

Most debates in organizational analysis can be reduced to discussions of the appropriate unit of analysis. Every perspective has emphasized the unit which considered as the main interpreter of the organization as an idea and function. These units of analysis, or the focus of attention, can be the whole organization; the individual; and the groups acting within the organization. According to this approach, BACHARACH/LOWlER (1980:210-13) have distinguished three theoretical perspectives:

The Rational Managerial Perspectives

The unit of analysis is the organization as a whole. Organization according to this analysis is a rational system of interdependent units functionally held together by a common goal. Attention here is focused on organizational structure (size, vertical and horizontal differentiation, role specialization, span of control and so forth) and work processes (communication, interaction, centralization, and the like). Such a perspective assumes a uniform effect of structure and process across the organization, combining across to create one measure of each variable for the total organization. One of the limitations of this perspective is its failure to depict organizations as dynamic entities subject to conflict and change. Structure has been refined in such a manner that it, rather than action, has become the focal point of analysis. Even when attention is paid to processes, they are conceptualized as if they were organizational structures.

The Individualistic Perspective

The unit of analysis is the individuals acting within the organization and the role that they occupy. This perspective casting the organization as a composite of individual actors and individual actions. Here, understanding the role of individual is a precondition for understanding the organization. In contrast to the twin assumptions of homogeneity and objectivity that guide the rational managerial perspective, the individualistic perspective assumes the organizations are heterogeneous and subjective. Moreover, while this perspective is based on a phenomenological bias that implies a focus on the individual, theorists tend to use the individual model as a metaphor for the functioning of the organization. As limitations of this perspective, overemphasis on the chaotic nature of action organization, and failure to consider the political and structural context that impinge on an individuals cognition and actions, are mentioned.

Organizational economics (agency theory and transaction costs theory) is to mention here because of the central role given to the action of individual actors, that is to ‘rational economic man’. The individual is seen to act in his or her own self-interest, consistent with being a rational economic ‘man’, and this leads to postulates of opportunism and guile in managerial behavior. Thus, in contrast to more collectivity-level or structuralist models in organizational studies which speak of the organization as a collective entity pursuing the organizational goal, organizational economics desegregates the organization into individuals, each of whom pursues his or her individual self-interest (DONALDSON 1995:169-70). The lack of explanation of organizational action by reference to the individual action of motivated individuals has been a persistent criticism of collectivity-level structuralist explanations such as those in structural contingency theory. The new individualism of organizational economics has the potential to make good some of these deficiencies.

The Group Bias Perspectives

BACHARACH and LOWLER (1980) believe, on the other side, that the main void in organizational theory is the lack of concern with politics. To fill this void, they have broken from the perspectives that dominate intraorganizational analysis²² which ignore the power politics involved in interest groups and coalition bargaining. As empirical middle ground between concentrations on aggregate and on individual data, an alternative perspective is an organizational model that based on the group as the unit of analysis. It envisions the work group as the primary focus for the study of organizations.

The basic unit of traditional political analysis is the sub-group - for example, class interests, class relations, and class conflict; the basic unit of apolitical perspective is the total system.

The current comparative interorganizational research, with the exception of some cases, has only peripherally treated subgroups and has tended to ignore subgroup differences, thereby preventing any systematic examination of the political tensions inherent in organizations.

This perspective maintain, on the other side, the coalitions and bargaining as a two interrelated phenomena which form the foundation of an understanding of organizational politics. It has attempted to integrate the social psychology of politics with the structural analysis of organizations. Thereby, Organizations are best conceptualized as political bargaining system.

In this respect, where the organizational model is based on the group as the unit of analysis, REED (1992:84-92), discusses two other analytical frameworks which view organizations as negotiated orders and power relationships. The first framework, as opposed to systems theory, treat organizations as the temporary product or outcome of interactional process between individuals and groups that is always open to revision and reformulation by them. The emphasis, according to this framework, is on the structure in process. Structures have to be configured, confirmed and reconfirmed by the fundamental negotiating processes that give them 'organizational life' and meaning in the first place.

Organizational structures are seen to be firmly embedded within a’dense‘ and intricate

‘Web‘ of interaction which gives them 'life' and relevance for the negotiation of social order between individuals and groups with very different interests and interpretations of what

22 He refers to three perspectives where : organizational actors considered as the passive entities presented in organizational psychology; organizations are viewed as loosely coupled systems; organization are viewed as structurally coordinated monoliths.

'ought to happen'. The recognition of conflicting interests and values as integral features of the process through which organizational order is negotiated leads to a consideration of power relationships.

This framework concentrates on the theoretical reconstruction of reciprocal processes of negotiation over time and the manner in which they lead to the fabrication of relationships and arrangements that simultaneously facilitate and constrain the creation of new 'organizational orders'. The clearest articulation of this framework is to be discovered in the development of a social action approach from the late 1960s or early 1970s onwards.

Social action theorists called attention to the social, historical and cultural contexts in which 'organizational projects' were mobilized. Therefrom, negotiated order theorists - whether their focus is on ‘high’ or ‘low’ politics within the organization - view it as organized anarchism or loosely coupled networks precariously held together by negotiating process and the power relationships emerging out of them. This approach then is focused on micro-level negotiating processes and the middle range structures which they produce. In other words, compared with the structural perspective, this approach lay too much stress on structure in process and not enough to the structuring of process. This limitation was the starting point for the development of other perspective which views organization as structures of power and domination.

The power framework as argued by REED (1992:93-102), is an attempt to overcome this polarization in preferred analytical logics - between structural or environmental determinism and organizational choice - by focusing on the more permanent configurations of power and domination which simultaneously constrain and enable the technical and political activities of social actors - whether these are constituted as individuals or as corporate groups. Formal or complex organizations must be approached initially as the tools or mechanisms through which these dominant groups secure and maintain the conditions necessary for their social reproduction and survival over time. Accordingly, organizations are contested terrains in which various groups and coalitions struggle to impose their preferences on structural designs and administrative processes.

As such, organizations are strategic sites for the conduct of pervasive power struggles between opposing groups over the control structures and practices - and their supporting rationales - through which work is organized, and the distributional outcomes which these mechanisms produce. In this sense, organizations are locales or arenas in which endemic conflicts over the distribution of power and the allocation of resources flowing from it are carried on. Thus, enshrined within all work organizations there lies a dialectic of control;

that is, a dynamic process of struggle between contending groups to secure and command the conditions through which collective action is made possible. In this respect, the dialectic of control is the dynamic process which underlies the changing balance of power experienced in all complex organizations and the crucial effect which it has on the capacity to shape and reshape the structure and practices through which domination is simultaneously protected and challenged at the level of routine everyday life or the level of strategic decision-making and corporate governance²³.

23 In this connection, KARPIK (1978), raises three questions; how ought we to study the social orientations of the actors who make up the organization?, should the 'corporation' be considered as a unitary power system or as the place where a plurality of power systems interlock?, and how can we explain the formation of collective choices through the relationships of opposition or alliance which are formed between the individuals and groups making up the organization? He concluded that power relationships are not merely internal to the organization.

The Cultural / Symbolic Perspective

The symbolic or cultural framework shifts the focus of attention away from 'organizations' to organizing; it suggests that the process of organizing is most appropriately conceptualized as the enactment of cultural development and transformation. Culture becomes the basic resources and process through which social action and interaction are continually constructed and reconstructed to form a shared 'organizational reality'. Here, the subjective- rather than the objective- aspects of organizational reality become the central focus for analysis in so far as they call attention to the socially constructed frames of value and meaning through which coordinated social life becomes possible

The fundamental process of cultural enactment and reaffirmation is dependent on and expressed through specific symbolic forms such as values, ideologies, rituals and ceremonies. As a social expression of human consciousness and creation, complex organizations have to be sustained through generative processes that yield and shape meaningful interaction. Organizational structures and the patterns of symbolic relationships and meanings sustained through the constitutive processes of human interaction and the cultural forms by which they are expressed such as language, symbols, myths and stories.

Organizational membership usually offers the prospect of more than one cultural identity and the forms of social conduct that it supports. The dominant cultures supported and reinforced by management often contain contradictory messages as to what to believe and how to act. This dominant cultures are unavoidably in competition with 'unofficial' sub-cultures - such as those entailed in membership of departmental, professional, craft and political groups - which offer alternative sources of meaning and legitimation for action that depart from approved norms. Any large-scale organization will contain competing, not to say conflicting, sources of cultural creation, enactment and mobilization which make the task of achieving effective cultural control even more fraught with uncertainty and ambiguity.

Managers play a pivotal role in this analytical framework. A dramatic illustration of the deep involvement of managers in processes of cultural production and enactment can be seen in the contribution of PFEFFER (1981). He has argued that "technical rationality is the 'religion' of formal or complex organizations and managers are its ‘high priests’. But, a conception of organizations as cultural artifacts and symbolic constructions soon reveal the ideological status and political function of this religion“. ²⁴

As limitation of the cultural/symbolic approach, as mentioned by some commentators²⁵, is its very focus on the micro-process through which organizational reality is defined and organizational order constructed. They have argued that the cultural/symbolic framework entails a logic of analysis which unavoidably directs attention away from the extra-organizational structures of economic and political power and domination in which ideological production and identity work must be situated. By focusing on the status of organizational participants and managers in particular as creators of symbolic orders supporting and legitimating shred meanings, cultural theorists seem to neglect the

24 In contrast, both agency theory and transaction cost theory see corporate managers as inherently untrustworthily (DONALDSON 1995:166).

25 See, for example, THOMPSON, P. and McHUGH, D. (1990), Work Organization: A Critical Introduction (Macmillan, London).

encompassing societal structures in which these processes are located (REED 1992:103-12). This has encouraged the development of an alternative approach that attempts to overcome the theoretical separation or duality between 'structure' and 'process' that seems to pervade organizational analysis. This analytical framework treats organizations as 'Social practices' which require simultaneously reference to structure both as a constraint on actions and as a resource facilitating action that transforms established arrangements.

1.2.2.3. Organizations as a Social Systems

The systems approach is one of the cornerstone in the theory of organizations. It is the most widely perspective which considered the basis and point d'appui for the latter perspectives.

Systems theory became established as the intellectual orthodoxy in the 1950s and shaped the overall agenda to which alternative perspective responded in a critical and creative fashion. The main assumption of this framework is: organizations are social units directed to the achievement of collective goals or the fulfillment of institutional needs for the wider society or environment of which they are a constituent part. The starting point for the systems framework is a conception of organization as a goal-oriented, purposeful system constituted through a set of common underlying abstract variables or dimensions relating to structural properties which are geared to the functional needs of a more inclusive social system. This framework then present an institutional analysis of structural forms.

Starting from this basis, MANIG (1989:5-6) defines the organizations as institutional term has specific characteristics with reference to the social process between members, the division of labor, and their structures. Organizations, as he pointed out, denote institutional entities in which persons or groups collaborate in view of achieving their goals. The structure is oriented towards duration and stability and is set up systematically.

Organizations therefore are characterized as goal-oriented social entities having a formal structure and through which the members orientate their activities towards achieving the objectives. The formal structure should be understood as a system of rules which determine the relations between the members of the organizations. To point out the relationship between organization and management he concludes the definition of the former as the framework within which the latter (as a function) is realized and both of them are always components of a society’s institutional systems .

In this context, the strict definition used by HAGE/FINSTERBUSCH (1987:11) summarize the elements or subsystems which constitute and shape an organization in seven elements.

Organization is "a social collective which has existed for at least five years, including at least ten paid employees who work largely full time throughout the year, use essentially the same core technology, and are arranged in a variety of prescribed positions designed to achieve some specific collective output(s)“. The distinguishing elements then are: size, duration, extent of reliance on salary, division of labor with occupational skills, technology-product group and specific outputs or goals²⁶.

26 KAST and ROSENZWEIG (1974) have refereed to five primary subsystems: goals and values, technology, structure, psychosocial and managerial.

The systems approach facilities understanding the important forces affecting organizations as well as the development of a comprehensive body of knowledge concerning their internal atmosphere and external environment. This body of knowledge provides the foundations for management practice. Organizations therefore are a subsystems of their environmental suprasystems. They are, accordingly, open systems in interaction with their environment and are continually changing (KAST/ ROSENZWEIG 1974).

Thereby, the systems framework analysis centers around the forms of structural design and the environmental conditions. Individual and group recalcitrance is a recurring problem that all organizations must face and respond to. One of the roles of management here is to achieve balance or equilibrium between the various segments or subsystems within the overall structure. Management must be used as equilibrium mechanism to ensure readjustment for the disturbed balance between the individual and the organization and between the latter and the environment under which it exist.

PARSONS (1956) constructs a theory of organization on the basis of the principle laid down in the social system (1951). PARSONS views organizations as system both in the own right and as constituent parts of larger systems. He suggests that ”while organizations are sub-units of larger environments, they themselves possess several layers of, for example, individuals, groups and departments.“ The basic problem for organizations is then „to integrate, both vertically and horizontally, the functions which operate at different levels” (HASSARD 1993:23-4).

Later on, as innovation, to make the systems analysis more dynamic - that is, better equipped to explain the causes and consequences of organizational change, an 'open-system' view of the organization has been developed. The most influential expression of this approach in recent years has been contingency theory. Both THOMPSON (1967) and LOWRENCE and LORSCH (1967) developed their analysis of the interdependence between organizations and their environments within an open-systems approach that regards the organization as an 'indeterminate' structure interdependent with its environment and facing the economic, informational, technological and social uncertainties which the latter presents. They maintain the initial logic of the systems framework in viewing the organization as a reactive or adaptive social unit which is largely determined by the character of the environment in which it functions. They continue, to a considerable extent, in an analytical tradition that sees the organization as being largely, if not totally a

‘prisoner’ or a ‘victim’ of its environment, rather than as a creator and manipulator of its task and institutional setting (REED 1992:75-84).

The most related perspective here, which is always referred to in discussing irrigation systems, is the technical systems perspective. Treating organizations as open socio-technical systems is still a dominant perspective in organizational theory. It is to be found, for example, in the 'quality of working life' movement which is preoccupied with the humanization of work through socio-technical design. CHERNS/DAVIS (1975) propose that far from imposing economic costs humanizing work through socio-technical design yields social, personal, and economic gains. This proposition is also reinforced by MILLER (1975) who points out, "the historical account reveals that attempts to maximize efficiency of the technical system, if social and psychological needs are not also satisfied, lead to sub-optimal performance" and that "the converse is also true" (BLUNT/JONES 1992).

Studying organizations from a socio-technical systems point of view began in earnest in the early 1950s in England. The approach differs from earlier ones, such as scientific management and human relations ²⁷, in that it is not biased towards either the technical or the social aspects of work and organization, but gives emphasis to both, and their interaction with the environment. In other words, the organization is perceived as an open system, susceptible to external influences, and interdependent with its environment.

Regarding an organization as an open systems, as KATZ (1966) and BARKO/PASMORE

Regarding an organization as an open systems, as KATZ (1966) and BARKO/PASMORE