A Critical Look at Organizational Paradigms (First of a Series)
Llewelyn Muriel Austria-del Rosario
August 29, 2006
I was having a breakfast meeting with the owner and CEO of one of the largest international human resource and head hunter companies in the country today, when she asked me—“Why are you trying to simplify your life to have a baby, are you having difficulties conceiving?” This single question was the clincher that made me decide to say no to the very lucrative business partnership they were offering me.
It spoke volumes about their corporate culture and mind-set.
Every set of managerial policies or strategies is based on a set of theories. Theories in turn are based on paradigms or presumptions. In order to examine the validity and the applicability of a certain theory, it is important to examine the paradigm upon which it rests.
The underlying presumption of bureaucracies is the fact that the structure (or the bureau) does not change, it is only the people (or the drawers making up the bureau) that changes.
This presumption takes on with it a mechanistic view of organizations—people are merely cogs that make the wheels of the organization turn. Personally, I find this very appalling on the basis of two major premises. First, no two individuals are alike. Because of this, the impact an individual has on the organization varies. Common sense, albeit not empirical data dictates that an individual’s personality and style will change the flavor of the organization to a certain degree. It is arguable to what extent. Nonetheless, the fact remains that organizations should be dynamic enough to allow a certain amount of flexibility in order to admit people’s uniqueness and idiosyncracies. After all, it is said that—“There is nothing so unfair as treating unequals as equals.” Corollary to this is the inherent lack of flexibility with regards to the organizational structure. Too often, the rigidity does not facilitate a rapid feedback system to correct inefficiency, elicit suggestions and implement change when it is timely.
For people who need a lot of structure and predictability, bureaucracies will probably be an ideal place for them. As a whole, however, I find that the rigid structure of bureaucracies has very limited space in an era of unprecedented growth and change.
McGregor’s model for organizational management which holds that the perception of managers shape their management styles, appeals to certain common sense notions. Our perceptions of people, situations and things will affect the way we interact with the world at large. Our basic assumptions color everything we do! Consequently, people rise up or sink to the expectations we have of them. This can be attributed partly to the phenomenon called self-fulfilling prophecy wherein we consciously and subconsciously concoct validations of the theories and scenarios we conjure up. It is also partly due to the influence we have on people. I believe people in positions of leadership have even more power to influence the performance of the people under them. They are in a position to give positive and negative reinforcement, to design and shape organizational policies and strategies in response to his or her perceived and felt need, as well as of the people he leads. I am also a firm believer in synergy. The sum of two individuals working together is greater than the component parts. What adds to the interaction is the synergy of the working relationship. Conversely, a lack of synergy can actually diminish the efficiency of two individuals. Because our interaction with people is dynamic, not static, the working atmosphere and organizational aura varies depending on the basic presumptions the leaders hold about people. This lends a lot of credence to McGregor’s theory.
The golden rule states that we should treat others the way we want to be treated. However, the platinum rule states that we should treat people the way they want to be treated. This is the cornerstone of Argyris’ theory of organizations. That is, organizations should meet their work force at the level of their needs. Theoretically, this is very appealing. In practice, this is very difficult to implement for two major reasons : first, the goals of individuals may run counter to that of the organization’s and second, organizations are directed primarily towards meeting its goals.
I operate from the premise that the organization has to employ people who sees the vision of the organization and owns it. If you don’t, can’t or won’t, then there’s really no point in maintaining a working relationship. It’s as simple as that. This concept works because it ensures commitment and dedicated service to the organization and fulfillment and satisfaction on the part of the employee (provided of course that other prerequisites such as favorable working conditions, just and equitable pay etc. are already a given).
I think Argyris’ perspective is skewed because organizations exist to meet its goals. Typically, these goals should also include the development of its work force. However, the purpose why the organization exists should only accommodate the needs of its employees, not be shaped and directed by it. If that were the case, then the organization runs the danger of being side-tracked and/or compromising its original goals.
Ouchi’s Theory Z of management which tries to blend the Japanese bureaucracy with a certain amount of western principles of human relationship, leadership and motivation models adds a certain amount of flexibility to the typically rigid hierarchy of bureaucracies. It’s okay, but for me, it is not good enough. It is simply an old product repackaged differently. This theory still adheres to the mechanistic view of organizations. I believe that the bureaucracy does not need to be restructured. It has to be redefined.
I am a firm believer in open theories of organization. Lawrence and Lorch’s ideas on flexible organizational structure and development appeals to me. First, people will disagree, that’s a given. In fact I believe it should be encouraged. The organization where there is uniformity of thought is no longer dynamic. Chances are, it is either stale and static or it’s very oppressive to the point where compliance is a must. Either way, it limits its productivity and efficiency. Second, integration is necessary to assimilate all the information and the changes necessary. Corporations should be organic—that is, they should grow and adapt, otherwise, they’ll die in the midst of change. To further stress my point, I’d like to take an analogy from nature—the dinosaurs became extinct because of their inability to change with the times.
If organizations want to stay healthy, they need to make a paradigm shift. Gone are the days when employees are predominantly men whose primary purpose in life is to earn for the family. We live in post-modern times, an era were wives and mothers have joined the workforce in droves and a period where men are redefining their roles in society to become more involved fathers instead of merely providing for the family.
For corporations, companies and institutions to stay afloat, they have to be able to flex and move. Employees should not merely be replaceable cogs that turn the wheels of the organization, but ingredients that change its flavor.
It spoke volumes about their corporate culture and mind-set.
Every set of managerial policies or strategies is based on a set of theories. Theories in turn are based on paradigms or presumptions. In order to examine the validity and the applicability of a certain theory, it is important to examine the paradigm upon which it rests.
The underlying presumption of bureaucracies is the fact that the structure (or the bureau) does not change, it is only the people (or the drawers making up the bureau) that changes.
This presumption takes on with it a mechanistic view of organizations—people are merely cogs that make the wheels of the organization turn. Personally, I find this very appalling on the basis of two major premises. First, no two individuals are alike. Because of this, the impact an individual has on the organization varies. Common sense, albeit not empirical data dictates that an individual’s personality and style will change the flavor of the organization to a certain degree. It is arguable to what extent. Nonetheless, the fact remains that organizations should be dynamic enough to allow a certain amount of flexibility in order to admit people’s uniqueness and idiosyncracies. After all, it is said that—“There is nothing so unfair as treating unequals as equals.” Corollary to this is the inherent lack of flexibility with regards to the organizational structure. Too often, the rigidity does not facilitate a rapid feedback system to correct inefficiency, elicit suggestions and implement change when it is timely.
For people who need a lot of structure and predictability, bureaucracies will probably be an ideal place for them. As a whole, however, I find that the rigid structure of bureaucracies has very limited space in an era of unprecedented growth and change.
McGregor’s model for organizational management which holds that the perception of managers shape their management styles, appeals to certain common sense notions. Our perceptions of people, situations and things will affect the way we interact with the world at large. Our basic assumptions color everything we do! Consequently, people rise up or sink to the expectations we have of them. This can be attributed partly to the phenomenon called self-fulfilling prophecy wherein we consciously and subconsciously concoct validations of the theories and scenarios we conjure up. It is also partly due to the influence we have on people. I believe people in positions of leadership have even more power to influence the performance of the people under them. They are in a position to give positive and negative reinforcement, to design and shape organizational policies and strategies in response to his or her perceived and felt need, as well as of the people he leads. I am also a firm believer in synergy. The sum of two individuals working together is greater than the component parts. What adds to the interaction is the synergy of the working relationship. Conversely, a lack of synergy can actually diminish the efficiency of two individuals. Because our interaction with people is dynamic, not static, the working atmosphere and organizational aura varies depending on the basic presumptions the leaders hold about people. This lends a lot of credence to McGregor’s theory.
The golden rule states that we should treat others the way we want to be treated. However, the platinum rule states that we should treat people the way they want to be treated. This is the cornerstone of Argyris’ theory of organizations. That is, organizations should meet their work force at the level of their needs. Theoretically, this is very appealing. In practice, this is very difficult to implement for two major reasons : first, the goals of individuals may run counter to that of the organization’s and second, organizations are directed primarily towards meeting its goals.
I operate from the premise that the organization has to employ people who sees the vision of the organization and owns it. If you don’t, can’t or won’t, then there’s really no point in maintaining a working relationship. It’s as simple as that. This concept works because it ensures commitment and dedicated service to the organization and fulfillment and satisfaction on the part of the employee (provided of course that other prerequisites such as favorable working conditions, just and equitable pay etc. are already a given).
I think Argyris’ perspective is skewed because organizations exist to meet its goals. Typically, these goals should also include the development of its work force. However, the purpose why the organization exists should only accommodate the needs of its employees, not be shaped and directed by it. If that were the case, then the organization runs the danger of being side-tracked and/or compromising its original goals.
Ouchi’s Theory Z of management which tries to blend the Japanese bureaucracy with a certain amount of western principles of human relationship, leadership and motivation models adds a certain amount of flexibility to the typically rigid hierarchy of bureaucracies. It’s okay, but for me, it is not good enough. It is simply an old product repackaged differently. This theory still adheres to the mechanistic view of organizations. I believe that the bureaucracy does not need to be restructured. It has to be redefined.
I am a firm believer in open theories of organization. Lawrence and Lorch’s ideas on flexible organizational structure and development appeals to me. First, people will disagree, that’s a given. In fact I believe it should be encouraged. The organization where there is uniformity of thought is no longer dynamic. Chances are, it is either stale and static or it’s very oppressive to the point where compliance is a must. Either way, it limits its productivity and efficiency. Second, integration is necessary to assimilate all the information and the changes necessary. Corporations should be organic—that is, they should grow and adapt, otherwise, they’ll die in the midst of change. To further stress my point, I’d like to take an analogy from nature—the dinosaurs became extinct because of their inability to change with the times.
If organizations want to stay healthy, they need to make a paradigm shift. Gone are the days when employees are predominantly men whose primary purpose in life is to earn for the family. We live in post-modern times, an era were wives and mothers have joined the workforce in droves and a period where men are redefining their roles in society to become more involved fathers instead of merely providing for the family.
For corporations, companies and institutions to stay afloat, they have to be able to flex and move. Employees should not merely be replaceable cogs that turn the wheels of the organization, but ingredients that change its flavor.
Print
Email
