Managing Professionals in an Organization - Essay Example

? Critical Review Critical Review Objective Managing professionals in formal organziation is not new issue (Covaleski et al 1998 293). This article, by James R. Barker, is based on how different managerial control system should be changed to self managing teams. “Leadership demands the expression of an authentic self” (Goffee and Jones 2005 87) but it should be done adequately because it is noted that people with the latter method tend to make the work for “efficient, powerful and punctual” (Nohria et al 2008 84). The article is based on a study in an organization where people were more tested with the new method of work and they thoroughly enjoyed it because people had the ease of being watched by their colleagues and friends rather than being watched over by their extremely “strict rules (Snook 2008 16) bosses. The management realized that the “employees want to know where the business is going and what they need to focus on” (Kaplan 2007 87). This idea was although introduced in the early 21st century, it was still to be tried and tested upon though “management fads shift all the time” (Brown and Duguid, 2000, p80). The article deals with the issue of surveillance at the work place "that is becoming the focus of much attention" (Sewell 1998 397) Core Questions: The article emphasizes on a few special pointers. The main one was probably to test how the workers work when they are around their peers who act like their bosses and not actually around their real bosses; who they think can be stricter. Also it shows how workers responded to managerial changes from bureaucratic to concertive control. Throughout this control the workers had their peers manage a group which was specially assigned to do a particular task, for them. Also the main purpose of it was to check how much labor, time and money is saved through concertive control and how quickly the negative or positive changes take place in the organization. Assumptions of the Study: The assumption made on the study was weather concertive control can affect any organization in a positive way or not. Also it was a controlled task to all self managers. They had to act responsibly for all actions. They had to initiate all actions and also commit to them. They had to be responsible for the organization’s performance. They had to be responsible for the quality of the work provided to an individual or of a group. They had to make a balanced group that is that every group should have high experienced workers, knowledgeable workers and able workers. Also the assumption was to take it in three stages. The first stage being the simple control one, allowed hired bosses to boss his employees. The second stage was the technological control. This control allowed the technology to look upon the workers. The third stage was the bureaucratic control. This was rather the most systematic stage of the control. And after this was the stage of concertive control that was to change the managing way of the organization, this change allowed self control throughout the organization and also control over the staff by a certain worker was introduced throughout this control How the analysis undertaken in the article helps to achieve these objectives After a lot of brain storming the idea of concertive control was started, hence, it should have at least been represented in a better way. The mangers should have had to have proper rules they had to follow and probably the basic rule for the managers should have been to be a little easy going on their staff. Also the research should have been carried out in many organizations instead of being carried out in two or three organizations for a longer period of time. Also discrimination between new and old staff members should not have been made. If an old staff member made a mistake he was punished but if the new staff member made the same mistake he was overlooked. The workers should have been given some time to get adjusted to the environment. The iron cage should have been given enough heat to loosen up. Authors’ Contribution to knowledge: The author is “professor of Organizational Theory and Strategy in the Department of Strategy and Human Resource Management at the Waikato Management School” (Professor James R. Barker Biography) He is an experienced and competent person to write on this topic as he has proper idea of what he was doing so he would have not made any mistake by suggesting the idea. The basic fault was to present the idea and this is what the writer learned throughout. The author probably figured out that his idea was a fail to “loosen up the iron cage”. His idea could have been a great success if he would have presented it in a logical way which he failed to do. Though his intentions were right and he could have given better ideas on how to work with the idea he presented, he chose to loosen up the cage in an easier way which was probably wrong. The author probably also figured out that using a control setup means that one should experiment it on a couple of organizations. Study Limitations and Conclusion The conclusion can be driven that the concertive control was a good idea but it was presented in a weak way hence making the control idea a total failure. With a few little moderations it could have been a success. The managers were not quite ready to manage their own groups and systems. The least they could do to make this control successful was train the managers professionally and give them knowledge of what is right and what is wrong for the bosses. Also self controlling groups should have also had a higher management for workers to know that their colleague is also under pressure and it is not only them who are under peer pressure. Even after a lot of amendments in the plan, this control was not likely to be very successful since it is very clearly sated that friendship entering into professionalism can ruin the chances of two people being very close to each other. Hence, instead of staff understanding their friend like manger, they probably started to underestimate him and vice versa (Townley 2003 518). The very knowledgeable writer failed to express his ideas in a better way and lost his control over his own concertive control. His idea is no doubt still acknowledged by other scholars, who are working on how to correct his mistakes on the idea and reintroduce it in the business world. If they don’t make the same mistakes again, maybe they can really be successful in concertive control over the idea. References Barker, J. R. (1993). “Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-managing Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 408–437. Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. (2000). ‘Balancing Act: How to Capture Knowledge Without Killing It’. Harvard Business Review: 73-80 Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M., Heian J. and Sajay Samuel (1998). “The Calculated and the Avowed: Techniques of Discipline and Struggles over Identity in Big Six Public Accounting Firms”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2, Special Issue: Critical Perspectives on Organizational Control, pp. 293-327 Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2005). ‘Managing Authenticity: The Paradox of Great Leadership’. Harvard Business Review,Dec 2005, Volume: 83 Issue: 12, pp 87-94 Kaplan, R. (2007). "What to ask the person in the mirror", Harvard Business Review, January 2007, pp 86-95 Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., Lee, L. (2008). "Employee Motivation: A Powerful New Model". Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86, No. 8, pp, 78-84 Professor James R. Barker Biography. Online at www.adelaide.edu.au/anzca2006/speakers/jim_barker_bio.pdf Snook, S.A. (2008). "Love and Fear and the Modern Boss," Harvard Business Review, January 2008, pp. 16-17 Sewell, G. (1998). "The Discipline of Teams: The Control of Team-Based Industrial Work through Electronic and Peer Surveillance", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 2, Special Issue: Critical Perspectives on Organizational Control (Jun., 1998), pp. 397-428 Townley, B. (2003). ‘Foucault, Power/Knowledge, and Its Relevance for Human Resource Management’. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 518-545 Read More