The Essence of Organisational Theory - Research Paper Example

1. Introduction The essence of organisational theory is that “a company’s success depends upon the individuals who work for it. Stress is an extremely complex phenomenon that can affect individuals in many different ways and to different degrees and can therefore severely affect organisational performance to the detriment of its staff and hence its end product or service” (Spires, 2003). As such, the organisational theory postulates that the success of the organisational framework and future growth directly correlates with the individuals working for it. Moreover, supporters of the organisational theory argue that the concept of “stress” is central to the individual’s performance within an organisation: “Stress is a person’s adaptive response to a stimulus that places excessive psychological or physical demands on that person” (Moorhead/Griffin, 1998, p.226). To this end the organisational theory focuses on the impact of stressors on the psyche, which is argued to undermine work efficiency and relationships at work. Indeed, D. A. Whetten and K.S. Cameron highlight the point that “there is nothing more demoralising than feeling you have a creative idea or a unique insight into a significant problem and then coming face to face with your organisational impotence……… these individuals learn quickly that only the naïve believe that the best recommendation gets selected, the most capable individual gets the promotion, and the deserving gets its fair share of the budget. These are the political decisions heavily influenced by the interests of the powerful” (Whetten & Cameron, 1993) They further highlight the point that ultimately the internal corporate disillusionment can be bred from toxic environments however, simultaneously this perpetuates the negative assumption that “power corrupts”. Conversely, Kanter posited that “it is powerlessness that often creates ineffective, desultory management and petty, dictatorial, rules-minded managerial styles” (Kanter, 1979 at p.65). Accordingly, it is further submitted that in order to understand power dynamics in organisations it is important to understand that corporate organisations are inherently political and as such, the comprehension of power and influence in the organisational theory is vital to attain maximum corporate efficiency. The focus of this analysis is to critically evaluate the concept of power dynamics in the corporate world. To this end, I shall firstly consider what constitutes “power” in the corporate paradigm, which is inherently correlated to the concept that corporate entities are effectively political groups. I shall then evaluate the sources of power and influence skills and consider their concurrent impact on efficacy in the corporate world. It is further posited in this paper that the power dynamic in corporate structures is intrinsically correlated to efficient organisational behaviour. As such, it is submitted that central to organisational behaviour is employee management, which in turn is impacted by employee personality and perception. As such, this paper shall undertake a contextual approach in critically evaluating the relationship between personality traits and employee performance and further consider how employee performance and motivation is clearly interrelated to an individual’s personality profile, which in turn impacts sources of the power dynamic within corporate structures. Moreover, the interrelationship between employee performance, personality traits and professional careers is further intertwined with various organisation behavioural theory models, which will be considered contextually. 2. Relationship between Power Dynamics & Corporate Success In consideration of the impact of power within the corporate structure, it has been posited that power is the “potential of an individual (or group) to influence another individual or group” (Whetten & Cameron, 1993). Moreover, the realities of managerial life necessarily require interdependence of managers on workers to achieve corporate goals. Directly linked to this is the fact that there will often be differences between managers and those on whom they depend. However, the central problem is that whilst managers will inherently depend on their subsidiaries to reach corporate goals, they do not always have authority over the individuals on whom they rely, which is a central power gap in corporate organisations. This in turn provides a potent source of potentially destabilising conflict within the corporate structure. To this end, in order to address the inherent power gap problem, it is submitted that effective management requires significant influence over those on whom they depend in order to achieve reciprocity. Indeed, Cohen et al argue that the efficacy of this notion of “reciprocity” relies on the concept that “one good or bad deed deserves another, therefore influence is possible” (Cohen, & Bradford, 1990). From a psychological perspective, the organisational theory focuses on the impact of stress on the “internal organisation of the mind” and it is argued that causality is vital in order to manage the consequences of such stress, which in turn can influences the internal corporate power dynamic (Moorhead & Griffin, 1998). Furthermore, it is submitted that the interrelationship between stressors, causation and consequence is key to organisational consequence, which impacts innovation and growth. Indeed, Cooper argues that within a business or industry, every sector of that business/industry is effectively an organism made of structures, which interact among themselves and therefore should be adequate to satisfy their needs (Cooper, 2004). This in turn highlights the need to address the creation of ineffective “political” groups with conflicting interests within the organisational framework. Moreover, Cooper argues that the contemporary workplace is fertile ground for stress, due to increased working hours, technological pressures and global and domestic market demands (Cooper, 2004). Cooper further argues that there appears to have been a gradual blurring of the distinction between home life and work life. Newton also comments: “work stress has become so prevalent that for most people in the West it is unavoidable” (Newton, 1995:1). This in turn underpins the interdependency on effective corporate strategy on the efficient internal personnel structures. An imbalance within this paradigm clearly provides a risk pertaining to political instability. The organisational theory approach argues that the work-stress phenomenon goes beyond the psychological perspective and that surrounding relationships and societal structures play key contributory roles (Cooper, 2004). As such, the organisational theory places the organisational framework at the centre of individual efficiency within the workplace. The learning organisation theory develops this further and is an evolving notion which has become increasingly incorporated into the modern company and multinational philosophy. The learning organisation is an evolving notion which has become increasingly incorporated into the modern company and multinational philosophy. In its simplest form, Richard Karash propounds the ideology underlying the learning organisation: “A learning organisation is one which people at all levels, individuals and collectively are continually increasing their capacity to produce results they really care about” (Karash, R. 1995). The ideological underlying principle behind the learning organisation is that it produces a flexible workforce with a shared vision, which in turn ensures internal stability within an organisation. This in turn directly relates to a central theory pertaining to sources of power within the corporate structure as being linked to the prescribed role one has within the organisation. For example, Cooper & Clarke comment that “In today’s knowledge-intensive and global organisations, information technology is beginning to take on a key strategic role. Thus, power of managers in information technology departments has been on the rise” (Cooper & Clarke, 2004). Additionally, Mike Wills defines the learning organisation as a “group of people who work together” (Wills, 1998). He further defines it as a “company, corporation, firm, enterprise or institution, or part thereof, whether incorporated or not, public or private, that has its own functions and administration. For organisations with more than one operating unit, a single operating unity may be defined as an organisation” (Wills, 1998). Pedler, Burgoyne and Boydell define the learning organisation as “an organisation that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself to achieve superior competitive performance” (1991). The concept traces its origins to the early writings on management trends in the 1930s and Schumpeter’s creative destruction theory (Pedler, Burgoyne & Boydell, 1991). This was further developed by neo-human writers such as Chris Argyris with his proposition of the “double-loop learning”, which reacted to the studies of corporate excellence undertaken by Peters and Waterman, identifying organisational behavioural trends (Argyris, C 1999). Moreover, the corporate framework relies on a myriad of interdependent individuals and groups with diverse interests. Accordingly, in order to maintain a positive power dynamic, reciprocity of interests is vital. As such, the more interlinked and diverse, the more scope for political conflict in organisations (Kotter, 1985). Accordingly, it is vital to ensure that there are mutually beneficial resolutions to those conflicts that do arise also increases: “if the organisation’s cultural norms are consistent with successfully negotiating win-win resolutions or there is expertise in this area, conflict will be ameliorated” (Kotter, 1985). Indeed, Pfeffer argues that the management culture and decisions are ultimately a series of trade offs, which can result in reduced diversity and compromise of an efficient organisational environment: “A strong culture really constitutes an organisational paradigm, which prescribes how to look at things, what are appropriate methods and techniques for solving problems, what are the important issues and problems…… A well developed paradigm, or a strong culture is overturned only with great difficulty, even if it fails to account for data or to lead to new discoveries” (Pfeffer, 1992). Alternatively, Hirschhorn and Gilmore point out that conflict between various factions within an organisation can in fact facilitate productivity. For example, they comment that “R&D has a legitimate interest in long-term research….. marketing in customer acceptance. A union member who confronts a foreman over an alleged contract violation, a regional vice president who wants to make sure her factories get more investment funds and the director of a research lab who tries to protect his scientists from intrusions from marketing are all engaged in necessarily political relationships. These relationships can be extremely useful to senior managers, because they mobilise the different interests and perspectives that together add up to a comprehensive view of the entire situation”. (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). On this basis, the key to eliminating political conflict appears to be reliant on specialisation to highlight creativity and innovation within the workplace. Therefore the potential destructive impact of political conflict on an organisation will depend on the responses to it. Nevertheless, power and influence are clearly the central mechanisms by which inevitable political conflicts in organisations are resolved (Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992). Additionally, Salanick and Pfeffer put forward the following proposition for why a particular company’s legal department had become powerful and influential “when an organisation faces a number of lawsuits that threaten its existence, the legal department will gain power and influence over organisational decisions. Somehow other organisational groups will recognise its critical importance and conger upon it a status and power never before enjoyed. This influence may extend beyond handling legal matters and into decisions about product design, advertising production and so on. Such extensions undoubtedly would be accompanied by appropriate or acceptable, verbal justifications” ( Salanick, & Pfeffer, 1977). If we further consider the sources of power, much of the power is rooted in the activity and job role within the corporate hierarchy. Indeed, Whetten and Cameron posit that individual corporate power is determined by positional and personal characteristics (Whetten & Cameron, 1993). Firstly, formal authority is derived from the individual’s position within an organisation and the higher in the corporate hierarchy clearly the higher the degree of responsibilities and appurtenant powers. In recent years, formal authority ahs been challenged by societal trends de to increases in employee rights and thereby “employees have come to expect more latitude and participation in decision making” (Whetten & Cameron, 1993). Another source of power is the relevance of someone’s position in terms of the central activities of the company. Additionally, autonomy is vital as the more autonomy and individual has within the workplace, the more power they will have. If we further consider this within the contemporary business framework, it is submitted that the interrelationship between employee relations and employee personality is vital to addressing potential sources of political conflict within the corporate framework. To this end, personnel management theory highlights the importance of efficient employee relations and collective employee morale in achieving specific goals (Argyris, C 1999). As such, Pedler argues that the learning organisation theory is central to this (Pedler, M & Aspinwall, K., 1998). Garvin further asserts that organisational learning involves three stages. Firstly is the notion of “cognition”, which is the learning of new concepts, development of skills, which relates to employee performance (Garvin, D. 2000). This is further demonstrated in Figure 1 below, which illustrates Garvin’s model of the learning organisation: Figure 1 GARVIN’S MODEL OF THE LEARNING ORGANISATION (David A. Garvin 2000), “Learning in Action” Harvard Business Press). With regard to the skills stage of Garvin’s learning organisation model, it is imperative for individuals at all levels within the organisation’s hierarchy to have problem solving capabilities, thereby highlighting the interdependency of employee performance on optimum organisational performance (Garvin, D.A. 2000). Pedler further argues that an individual must firstly improve self development, which can then be distinguished between actual and desired situations in problem solving scenarios to readdress corporate power imbalances (Pedler, M., & Aspinwall, K., 1998). As part of the learning organisation, team co-ordination is vital and careful consideration must be given to the selection of team members. As such Tompkins submits that commitment to success, complementary personalities, skills and necessary talents are vital to accomplish organisational goals (Tompkins, 2002, p. 28). As such, the effective co-ordination between employee personality and performance is vital to optimum team performance (Tompkins, 2002). Additionally motivation and commitment are essential characteristics that team members must portray in order for the team to achieve its goals (Hill & Ingala, 2001). Tompkins further postulates that “there is no such thing as a part-time team player. Team players are committed to the team and dedicated to mutual success and co-operation” (2002, p.30). Another common factor in effective employee performance within the teamwork model is the recruitment of individuals with similar behaviours and abilities, which highlights the importance of individual behavioural traits in workplace performance. Indeed, Hill and Ingala assert: “today’s tight job market, the right fit is a critical success factor for any position in the team” (2001, p.38). The importance of employee personality in performance is further evidenced by the different requirements of a particular job role. As such, Hill and Ingala argue that case files are important in reviewing histories and individual profiles (2001). For example, some jobs require analytical skills and it has been argued that extroverted personality types are perfect for jobs requiring travelling (Tompkins, 2001). However, this needs to be confined within specified goals to ensure optimum efficiency. As such, the Myer-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is often utilised to determine the best personality for the right job and highlights that what motivates an individual directly links to the person’s “personality traits”, which then impacts employee performance and long-term career development (Carlyn, 1977). McShane and Von Glinow further highlight how “personality and values are the most stable characteristics” in individuals and are vital to continued success (2005). McShane and Von Glinow further argued that employee motivation and persistence determines if the tasks are completed on time. As such, McShane and Von Glinow’s observations highlight the importance of considering employee personality in recruitment and how teams must possess similar personality traits and values in order for them to accomplish the jobs (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005). It is therefore arguable that the personality preference and MBTI assessment model is an important yardstick against which to monitor employee suitability for position. 3. The MBTI Model The MBTI model further highlights the interrelationship between employee personality and performance and Bringhurst further comments that the “MBTI is primarily concerned with valuable differences in people that result from where they like to focus their attention, the way they like to take in information, the way they like to decide and the kind of lifestyle they adopt” (Bringhurst, 2001). The MBTI creators developed questions and based on the responses determined the following categories: 1) whether the individuals are extroverted-introverted (E-I), 2) sensing-intuitive (S-N), 3) thinking-feeling (T-F) and 4) judging-perceiving (J-P). The personality indicator provides insight into how individuals may act alone and in a team setting (Bringhurst, 2001). 3. 1 E vs. I. Within this category, Bringhust observes that an extroverted person will receive energy from others in the workplace, is goal-oriented in problem-solving and comfortable interacting with peers (Bringhurst, 2001). Conversely, the introvert prefers to be alone and often observes (Hermann, 1997). The dichotomy between the two types highlights different strengths and suitability for different roles within a workplace, further supporting the importance of the relationship between individual behavioural traits and employee performance. 3.2. The Sensing Individual In contrast, the MBTI model posits that the sensing individual utilises their five senses to absorb information and identify the appropriate details, while intuitive people seek to find explanations, possibilities and relationships linked to the information being received (Bringhurst, 2001). A contextual example of the sensing team member in Bringhurst’s case study highlights the utility of the sensing member as having excellent observation skills during follow-up visits for rehab patients (2001). This further highlights the importance of understanding employee personality vis-à-vis the nature of the exact job position. 3.3 Ts v F Under the MBTI model, Carlyn argues that “Thinking types rely on logical structures to clarify order into a particular situation: they are skilled at objectively organising material, weighing the facts and impersonally judging whether something is true or false” (Carlyn, 1977, p.461). Feeling people on the other hand arguably go further and comprehend other individuals’ feelings, formulating their judgments on their personal values (Carlyn, 1977). 3.4. The Judging Individual Bringhurst argues that the judging individual is very “decisive, wants to effect closure sooner rather than later, is impatient to “get on with it” and proceed to the next task” (Bringhurst, 2001). This type of personality in a team setting maintains a focused path continuing towards their goals. Alternatively, the perceiving type is observed to“prefer to keep their options open, being able to live with a high level of uncertainty in their lives, waiting until the last moment to decide” (Bringhurst, 2001). 4. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Motivation & Conclusion Whilst, the MBTI model is undoubtedly useful in highlighting the direct correlation between employee personality and employee performance, the categorisation is arguably too narrow in covering the wide range of subjective personality traits. Moreover, the MBTI model focuses on employee traits within a limited framework and ignores the background motivational factors that undoubtedly shape individual behavioural patterns. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory explains the understanding of motivation-based on five human needs. To this end, Halepota (2005) asserted that “a person’s needs are the main motivator that drives a human” (p.15). According to Maslow’s hierarchy model, once these needs are satisfied, the particular motivator expires and the individual then progresses to the next level (Cook, 2001), p.63). Maslow further categorised these needs in the following levels: physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualisation needs. The physiological level is argued to be the lowest need level, servicing the innate need for survival. The safety level completes a person’s needs to be free of physical and emotional threat and once the physiological and safety needs are met, the individual can then progress to the need associated with social interaction. The esteem needs category is categorised into two parts, internal and external. The internal esteem needs are those related to self-esteem such as self-respect and achievement and the external esteem needs are social status and recognition (Cook, 2001). The highest level in the needs hierarchy pyramid is self-actualisation and Halepota comments that “a person who has had all of his or her lower level needs fulfilled, and is looking to meet higher level needs, may go back to the lowest level needs if there is a sudden reversal in the environment” (2005, p.15). Moreover, Halepota postulates that Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory has significant implications for recruitment and monitoring employee performance. Haletopa further argues that if a team leader can determine at what level of the needs hierarchy each employee has reached, suitable choices can be made for the individual in terms of long term career development (Halepota, 2005). The above analysis demonstrates the unequivocal importance of the relationship between employee personality and performance. Moreover, the organisational theory of the “learning organisation” further highlights the business growth and innovation is intrinsically co-dependant on effective employee performance. As such, the MBTI model and Maslow theory are clearly important aids to understanding personality traits when considering recruitment needs and personnel management. However, whilst Maslow’s theory is clearly important in evaluating employee motivation which in turn impacts employee performance, these needs are rooted in presumptions of innate human needs and appear to ignore the individual personality traits that are just as significant in considering employee performance. Conversely, whilst the MBTI model provides helpful categorisation of personality types, its main flaw is the failure to consider motivational factors. As such, it is submitted that consideration must be given to the interrelationship between the MBTI model and Maslow’s theory in considering the relationship between employee personality and performance, particularly in maintaining optimum personnel management and addressing power imbalances in the corporate paradigm. It is submitted that this is vital to ensuring that the inherently political nature of the corporate world is exploited to achieve maximum efficiency as opposed to becoming destabilised by the potentially conflicting sources of power. . Ultimately, it is vital to distinguish between organisational learning and individual learning and focus on the interrelationship between the two in ensuring implementation of the learning organisation as a reality in business operations. BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyris, C. (1999) On Organisational Learning. Blackwell Publishing. Beerh, T. (1998). An organisational psychology meta model of occupational stress. In C. Cooper (ed), Theories of Organisational Stress. New York: Oxford University Press. Bringhurst, N. C. (2001) How assessing personality type can benefit you and your practice. Journal of Financial Planning, 14(1)104, Boydell T, Pedler M. (1981) Management Self-Development: Concepts and Practices: Great Britain. Gower Publishing Company Ltd, 1981 Brinkerhoff, R.O. & Gill, S.J. (1994) The Learning Alliance: USA. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1994 Buhalis, D., & Costa, C.(2005) Tourism Business Frontiers: Consumers, products and Industry. Butterworth-Heinman, Carlyn, M. (1977) An assessment of the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(5) 461, A. R. Cohen & D. L. Bradford (1990). Influence without Authority. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Cook, C. W. (1980) Guidelines for managing motivation. Business Horizons, 23(2) 61, 1980 Cooper, C & Clarke, S. (2004). Managing the Risk of Workplace Stress. London: Routledge. Foster, R. & Kaplan, S. (2001). Creative Destruction: Why Companies that are Built to Last Under-perform the Market – And how to successfully transform them. Currency publisher. Garvin, D.A. (2000). “Learning in Action” Harvard Business Press. Hermann, N. (1997) Identifying how we think: The Myers-Briggs type. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 114-116. Hill, K. & Ingala, J. (2001) Build a dream team. Nursing Management, 2(4), 37. T. Hirschhorn & T. Gilmore. The New Boundaries of the Boundaryless Company. Harvard Business Review, May-June 1992, p.108). Ivanchevich, J.M, & Matteson, M.T (1996). Organisational Behaviour and Management. USA: IRWIN, Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organisational Stress: Studies on Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley. R.M. Kanter, “Power Failure in Management Circuits”. Harvard Business Review. July-August 1979. Karash, R. (1995) Why a learning organisation? Available at www.richardkarash.com, Kreitner, R, & Kinicki, A. (1995) Organisational Behaviour. USA: IRWIN J. P. Kotter. Power and Influence: Beyond Formal Authority. New York: Free Press. McShane & Von Glinow (2005). Organisational behaviour: emerging realities for the workplace revolution. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Moorhead, G. & Griffin, R., (1998). Organisational Behaviour. 5th Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York. Newton, T. (1995). Managing Stress: Emotion and Power at Work. London: Sage. Nolan, R., & Croson, D.C. (1995) Creative Destruction: A Six Stage Process for Transforming the Organisation. Harvard Business School Press. Pedler, M., & Aspinwall, K. (1998). A concise guide to the Learning Organisation. Lemos & Crane Pfeffer(1992).Managing with Power, Politics and Influence in Organisation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992 Review May-June, 1992, p.108). Pollert, A. (1981). Girls, Wives, Factory Lives. London: MacMillan. Salanick and Pfeffer (1977) Who Gets the Power and How they hold onto it: A Strategic Contingency Model of Power”. Organisational Dynamics, Winter 1977 p.4. Tompkins, J.A. (2002) Successful organisations recognise the need for continuous improvement. Plant Engineering, 56(9) 28, 2002. D. A. Whetten and K. S. Cameron (1993) Developing Management Skills: Gaining Power and Influence. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers (1993), pp.26-27. Read More