The validity of class conflict, feminism, diversity and inequality in the context of organization theory - Essay Example

Recent writing on organizations has introduced ideas such as conflict, feminism, diversity and inequality which implicitly and explicitly challenge the assumptions of the main writers on organizations during the 20th. Assess the validity of such claims in the context of organization theory. Minorities and women may challenge traditional, hierarchical models of business management that are thoroughly ingrained in business practice, making a multi-cultural approach not only reflective of the modern workplace, but also an innovative field of organizational theory. In considering the context of progressivism, and the movements for women’s suffrage, human rights, and other reforms in society, it is evident that activist movements have not targeted internal business management practices as directly as they have challenged outdated social legislation. While some “white only” establishments may have been targeted by civil right activists in the Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King era of American history, generally the labor movement has been the monolithic force for negotiation with business management teams and ownership. Changes in business practices are related to changes in society, and this is further connected to public law concerning the equality of women, ethnic groups, and other minorities. Reform is more thoroughly implemented through legislative change and mandate at the state or national level. Organization theory charts a multi-disciplinary approach to the structure of business institutions, alternatively relating psychological studies, anthropology, sociology, and systems theory to methodology and research drawn from other social sciences in order to de-construct business organizations and understand them thoroughly. In a sense, organizational theory does reflect multiculturalism in its multi-disciplinary inquiry, but feminists and other civil rights activists have had a much stronger ability to effect business practices by targeting social legislation and the education system as places to implement political change. In many ways organization theory and the evolution of multicultural awareness within it in the 20th century as related to feminism, diversity movements, and civil rights must be seen in context with the Marxist movement, with which it competes in many ways historically. In tracing the roots of organizational theory back to Weber as an expounder of rational bureaucracy and sociology in the West, it should be noted that this functions in alignment with the Western tactic of containing Marxism domestically and internationally. Marxism was seen by some sectors but especially the ownership class of early industrial capitalism as a major threat in Germany, England, and America especially. Weber’s methodology, over the course of the 20th century, became an academic standard in the West’s universities, anchoring the secular-democratic tradition that upheld the status quo vs. Marxist interpretation. Thus, historically innumerable intellectuals, radicals, and minority activists took the Marxist path of social reform, especially in the early 20th century Europe. In this manner Marxism may have attracted many more of the radical minded activists that were advocating organizational reform of business and society along communist / socialist lines. In the same era, organizational theory developed the intellectual foundation of liberal-democratic Western society arguing from the capitalist base. In considering organizational theory to be set primarily in an academic or collegiate environment, from the base of theory, analyzing societal structures and arguing for a position of re-ordering or change, it acted as a containment force contra Marxism in the West. Yet, at the same time, Marxism attracted the more radical minds attracted to revolutionary idealism rather than rational, progressive reform. In the post-Cold War era, organizational theory is thoroughly mainstream and Marxism is critically marginalized. Yet, looking backward, the extent that Marxism was able to spread politically and effect organizational change in politics and business was highly varied from country to country. For example, Marxism had very little effect on the labor movement in the U.S., but considerable in Europe and other nations. The important point to note is that in the countries where organizational theory developed as a mainstream view evolving out of Weberian sociology, behaviorist psychology, and the like, the politics involved with establishing critical control of academia necessarily required that the movement not be overly political. Minorities and women have rarely looked to organizational theory as a vehicle to express revolutionary or activist goals. Academic careerism can be said to be founded on the same base as the other professions in late capitalist societies, and as such it is beholden to the mainstream that approves the funding for the universities. In this manner, “critical resistance,” as former Black Panther, Marcusian Marxist, and Professor of Consciousness Studies Angela Davis called it, is limited in organization theory in comparison to the Marxist-oriented critical theory evolving out of France and other places. The example of how Davis travelled from a revolutionary gang to academic tenure may be seen as one where she moderated her actions less than words to maintain a new career position. Yet, the larger question is not whether or not she ceased to be threatening to “white patriarchy” when joining the State’s education system, but rather if careerism inevitably has a moderating effect on organizational change within a social system. Popular sentiment may view academia as a leftist or socialist entitlement playground, but the words are generally regarded to be just “hot air”. The words remain free but are inconsequential, ignored, marginalized, but more than anything controlled by the salary-to-society structure academic status and prestige is based on. As organizational theory represents the mainstream capitalist worldview contra Marxism but not mentioning it as such, it has an inherently conservative bias that supports the status quo in society. This is not to contend that the rational, progressive reform represented in organizational theory is not preferable to the dialectical materialism and class struggle of Marxism, only to note, that it provides a societal basis to educate against it which is inherently conservative. The problem of careerism is summarized in the classic one-liner from Upton Sinclair, who stated that it is “hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it.” In applying this aspect of the careerism critique to academia and business organizations in Western capitalism, it is clear that there will also be a hiring bias and a general reluctance to change within university administration as well as business management. Just as it is not unlikely for an overly radical academic to fail to be hired or achieve tenure, so too would the Marxist organizer be likely to be quickly “fired” by most corporate organizations in the West in the 20th century. Thus, while Marxism has the polarizing effect on society and academia during this period, and may attract more radical followers, organization theory is limited by the salary constrictions of the careerist critique to dampen rhetoric and advocacy for change or to do so through only officially recognized methods and channels. Related to the dilution hypothesis is the additional possibility and evidence in the 20th century that minority leaders, such as civil rights, human rights, and anti-colonialists, as well as feminists, were attracted to building their own autonomous organizations outside of both formal Marxism and formal mainstream academia. In this way, they also constructed and autonomous identity and social expression culturally. This also may have served to attract reformist or radical talent outside of the formal organization theory circle and into their own identity structures as vehicles for activism. The result would also be a weakened advocacy to reform in organization theory, or at least, a delayed advocacy. In this manner organization theory may be seen as an intermediary of reform, which may be born and grow in more radical and autonomous academic groups outside of the formal academic mainstream, but then becomes influential upon and adopted by organizational theorists who then push it into institutional structure. The strongest argument for the reform advocacy power of the organization theorists is that they do represent the mainstream academia in the West and thus do control to a certain degree what is taught and discussed by students. As these students, especially at the best schools, are quickly hired and assimilated into corporate and governmental institutions, they then have the ability to begin the change process in society. The ability of the teachers to influence and change society through this method should not be underestimated, but they still must convince students that their path and advice are legitimate. In summary, review of the history of the 20th century will support the tenet that organization theory was more attractive to students for a career path, especially considering Weber’s views on the tenured bureaucracy and rational reform, but less attractive to minority students and feminists who were interested in a vehicle for activism. Similarly, the radical, non-Marxist groups of autonomous feminists, minority identity, and civil rights groups were targeting government policies specifically and occasionally university administration as well for policy changes, and may have seen mainstream academics as supportive in many ways of the hegemonic agenda they opposed. Critical theory in France, led by Althusser, Derrida, Foucault, Sartre, and others was predominantly Marxist and undoubtedly led to a greater influence in academia there than Weber. American universities may employ a Marxist as a radical voice in a conservative faculty to build an illusion of a greater freedom of speech or simply to attract attention and more students. Where education is a business and where education is a social right, the social discourse will inevitably be different. Similarly, it can be expected that mainstream academia will accurately reflect the culture and era in which it is contextualized, both through diversity and politics. The idea of academia as vanguard may take different forms. For the Marxists, this is action that leads to the street, and for organization theory it is progressive reform through plodding channels of institutional bureaucracy or corporatism. Thus, it is reasonable to expect less actual reform from organizational theory unless Marxism is marginalized and organizational theory holds the majority of influential positions in society. Institutional psychology in Weberian academic contexts are not seen as overly political or concerned with minority or feminist issues inherently. Compare this to France where the Marxists have politicized Freud and other aspects of psychoanalysis to the extreme. Clearly in Europe Marxism has had a greater impact on the labour movement than in the U.S., however it can be argued that organization theory represents a consensus of non-Marxist academic views and the management philosophy of mainstream organizations in the West. As such, organization theory may wield greater power and ability to control or implement the reform process than Marxists. Where this is a quantitative analysis, a qualitative one might ask where the important societal reforms derived from, the academic mainstream, the Marxists, or the autonomous ethnic and feminist groups based on identity politics. In answering this question, it is only possible by taking sides via affinity to one of the groups and viewing either favorably or negatively the goals posited in reform. In basing its view on the consensus, organization theory has the ability to attract a far wider mainstream network of adherents, both within academia and without, which may belatedly or as a mediating force advocate for quintessential views of reform synthesized from the best of the activism of the other, more radical organizations. This is a progressive, moderating force in society, the force or attractiveness of which is very strong when considered from the extremes but generally what the social-democratic or liberal-democratic base of the Western societies expect and pay for in their institutions. Thus, in this critique the academic and the corporate function in virtually the same manner, and careerism represents another moderating force. In Europe it can be said that the strongest social movements are expressed in the street, through crowds of people protesting against government for justice. Similarly, in the corporate context, the most radical situation of reform is in the worker’s strike. In feminist or ethnic identity politics, sanctions or economic boycotts might be a related policy tactic used to force change in business groups or nation-states. Academic movements also sometimes see student strikes and demonstrations that shut down the campus, or even a city, as in the case with England recently. Yet a viable question can be asked as to whether reform can be implemented more easily and efficiently from within, as in a Weberian bureaucracy or corporate management structure with progressive elements leading the change. It can be argued similarly that the need for radical or revolutionary change is only born out of repression, and thus, in managing a just and open social order, the liberal-democratic model of moderate, gradual social change that is non-disruptive of the fundamentals of the status quo is reflective of what the people actually want. Where Marxists and ethnic identity groups are generally protesting from a position of exclusion, based on traditional structural issues that may be based on racism, hatred, stereotypes, sexism, usw., the force that actually changes those issues in society is not radical confrontation but progressive education. In this manner organization theory has provided the greatest benefit to liberal societies through providing a progressive education that eradicates sexism, racism, bigotry, etc. through the minds of students as they learn to think critically as citizens. Business patterns and changes in business practices tend to follow society but more specifically social legislation that mandates a certain policy or end of a policy. Racism could be tolerated under an Apartheid regime but that same regime could also be targeted critically over time until it could no longer survive. Thus, there are multiple methods of reform, very few of which are immediate and most of which require a gradual implementation with resources of the State. In this manner, Weberian bureaucracy can implement in society the reforms in a gradual, progressive manner and academia can educate the future change through each class of students. Ethnic minority activists often feel the need to follow the Gandhi example and shame the oppressor into justice, something which organization theory is not aligned with as a method. Feminists range nearly as broad of a path in the political spectrum as humans, indeed there are innumerable sub-identities of Marxist feminists, ethnic identity oriented feminists, academic feminists, social-democrat feminists, etc. and the same applies to any ethnicity-based identity group. Yet, feminism within organization theory is not overly characteristic of the movement or field, or even something that would be considered expressive of it politically. Whether or not feminists have achieved their political and social goals, many have found a career path in organization theory in both academia and corporate institutions, and to many this represents a prime example of victory over discrimination in the movement, just as it does for ethnic identity oriented groups in traditional white patriarchy type of cultures. In summary, in 20th century academia, particularly in America and Europe, the multi-disciplinary approach of organization theory combining the mainstream consensus of accepted academic thought can be contrasted with the Marxist school. Politically, organization theory represents the mainstream of social-democracy and capitalism, and a moderate to conservative view of what is socially acceptable within the context of what is published. Careerism provides another moderating to conservative force in both academia and corporate institutions. Marxists tend to attract a more radical readership and philosophy, and the Western social democracies feared the spread of this ideology popularly. The main way Marxism would be spread was through the universities, thus Western capitalism needed its own consensus in academia that ignored but maintained a superior status over Marxism popularly. The end result of organization theory is a method of containing Marxism at the university level in the 20th century, and in the student population. This is not done overtly, but rather through careerism and human resource choices. The salary factor of careerism moderates speech and action compared to the radical reform activity of the autonomist ethnic and feminist groups. The Marxists are marginalized in the post-cold war era and increasingly unable to enact any reform, either in politics or in labour organization. What organization theory offers is a progressive path of reform based in a tenured academia and bureaucracy leading and teaching reform through a slow process of change that favors the status quo by nature. Despite the strength of this position, ethnic identity individuals and feminists are less likely to become radical reformists when working in organizational theory as a career path, but may be more effective as lifelong reformers working within the system for change. Bibliography: Hatch, M.J. & Cunliffe, A. (2006), Organization Theory - 2nd ed., Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2006. Tsoukas, K., & Knudsen, C. (2003), The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory, Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2003. Read More