DPLS 701su14 Organization Theory Summer 2014 3 credits

Professor: P. Caroline Fu, PhD

E-mail: fu@gonzaga.edu

Office Phone: 509-313-3488

Office hours: Please e-mail for an appointment

Class Logistics: 6–10pm, Tilford Room #405,

Class Dates Mondays; June 16, 23, 27 (Friday), 30; July 7, 14, 21

Course Overview

The course explores the foundations of organizational theorizing, philosophizing, and practice. One of the key texts for the course is an anthology of ‘classic’ organizational writings by Shafritz et al. that will help frame and contextualize our more or less Hatch’s postmodern approach to understanding organization theory. The text by Hatch explores organization theory from modernist, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. The symbolic and postmodern perspectives are theoretical perspectives acting on and responding to modernist practices that have become increasingly institutionalized over the past 200 years. These relationships and the theories and practices that arise from this confluence of perspectives will be the core focus of the course.

Hirschhorn (1997) emphasized the psychological implications of the authority in leadership and followership. By presenting and analyzing the many diverse experiences, Hirschhorn explained the pain and hardship that we experience are part of developmental process of moving toward a postmodern world.

The work by Etienne Wenger on Communities of Practice is an attempt to develop a model of the organization or community that reflects the symbolic interactionist perspective as it tries to map behavior and practice with meaning and identity. Building off modernist perspectives this work explores, through an ethnography of a claims processing unit in a large insurance company, the intersection of the structures and rules of existing institutions with the always alive and changing nature of people working, thinking, and making meaning.

Other readings will be provided that touch on and extend the discussion of the postmodern perspective. Underlying all of these perspectives is an orientation toward holism, the biological basis of mental processes, and a social constructionist perspective toward knowledge and identity. Be prepared for discussion, dialogue, and engagement.

The purpose of this core DPLS course is to help chart both a practical and theoretical mapping of organizational thinking as it relates to the personal and global dimensions of leadership. This

relationship is continuous and philosophically rigorous in that the interdisciplinary approaches binding our physical, social/linguistic, and transcendent levels of inquiry.

Course Structure

This course is composed of reading, writing, discussion, lecture, and group activities. We will acquaint ourselves in small working groups during the first meeting that will remain intact throughout the course. These groups will serve multiple functions. Among them are:

Content & process support - group participants will have an opportunity to discuss readings, writing, and presentation assignments.

Writing and editing – Please review the DPLS course paper rubric (see Blackboard under Information) and use as the context for this joint editing process. It is recognized that underlying good writing is both clarity of thought and an adequate grasp of concepts and frameworks. These forums used in conjunction with my own critique of student work will assist in the development of sound scholarship. This will be a particularly important part of your essay assignment.

Please use 1 inch margins, 12 point Times-New-Roman font in APA-6 format for all your papers and essays. Please visit DPLS website to obtain course paper template, writing instructions, and on how to write scholarly paper?:

http://www.gonzaga.edu/Academics/Colleges-and-Schools/School-of-Professional-Studies/Degrees-Programs/PhD-Studies/Curriculum/Templates.asp

Pre-class and capstone papers are to be emailed to me, fu@gonzga.edu on or before the assigned due dates. Please visit Blackboard

Peer-review Process – Please post your essays on the Blackboard’s Discussion area for peer review. This process mimics a peer-review journal process. Prior to posting on the Blackboard completed essays, each person’s essay can be read and edited by their peers in a structured editing activity. After posting, the peer-review process begins. Page limit will be observed (essays exceeding the limit will be considered as being rejected from entering the review process). Each person’s essay will be reviewed for content, writing style, and format by his or her peer group. The essay and the peer reviews will be further critiqued by the whole class.

Project and classroom activity work - One of our first activities will be for groups to develop an agreement about group process and individual responsibilities. Other group activities will be developed.

Most 4-hour meetings will open with an overview of the readings. Small group discussions of course notes and readings will then follow. We will generally take a 20-30 minute break. Following the break we will work on projects, conduct full group debriefs, continue discussion, or review readings.

I will share my interpretations to stimulate discussion and/or communicate concepts and ideas to frame dialogue when we meet. I also hope to inspire students to interpret and analyze the readings from their own perspectives.

The intentions & aims for the course:

• To develop an understanding of self-leadership as a bridge to practical strategies for living, leading, and working in organizations.

• To absorb and reflect on the possibilities of current innovations in social tools - peer to peer networking and a general decline in the cost of organizing (transaction costs).

• To develop a working knowledge of the history & concepts of organization theory as it relates to leadership studies.

• To understand both conceptually and historically the role of modernist theories of organizations & groups.

• To understand both conceptually, personally, and historically the role of symbolic, interactionist, and social theories of organizations & groups.

• To survey, discuss, and develop an understanding of postmodern interpretations of organization theory as well as issues of power and diversity in organizations.

• To connect a leadership theory for transformation to organization theory in practice and the possibility of transformative change in both private and public organizations.

Expectations, Assignments, & Grading

• Please read all assignments and my course notes posted on Blackboard. These notes are meant to be an initial factor in the reading triangulation strategy that involves the author(s) work, your interpretation of that work, my interpretation, and finally our collective interpretation. This process is much more effective when all participants commit to doing the reading. Some group activities will be structured around these notes.

• Participants will be expected to attend all sessions. If you miss a meeting please inform me via email or phone prior to the missed meeting. Missing more than two meetings will result in an incomplete and require either taking the course again or auditing it at some future time. (Participation - 10% of grade)

• Participants will be expected to complete a pre-course writing assignment on (Hirschhorn, 1997) and Blackboard posting, Cooper & Burrell article. Specific guidelines are on Blackboard under Course Assignments (10% of grade)

• Participants will write two 3-page essays (excluding cover page and reference page) on selected chapters from the text: Classics of Organization Theory (see Blackboard under Course Assignments) (20% of grade).

• Participants will present in teams of 2 or 3 persons in an 1-hour presentation synthesizing and/or facilitating a discussion on the selected book chapters from: Classics of organization theory, comparing them to leadership in current context. The instructions will be posted on Blackboard at the first meeting. (10% of grade)

• Write a capstone paper synthesizing the readings and discussions central to Organization Theory. This will be a 10-page paper (excluding title page, abstract, table of content, and references). You can exercise wide latitude and judgment in writing the paper but it must be grounded in one or more of the three broad perspectives of the course (Modernist, Symbolic, and Postmodern). Your paper should include references citing course materials but also should include references and sources not found in the assigned course materials. See Blackboard under Course Assignments for more details. (50% of grade).

Expectations and Assessment

Assessment of doctoral work in leadership studies is challenging. Interdisciplinary work dealing with complex and sometimes contested theories and concepts requires (from my perspective) a tolerance for uncertainty, ambiguity, and contingency. I am also struck by the need for a high degree of self-directed behavior on the part of doctoral students and candidates. I would like my teaching style, assessment policy, and rubrics to support and facilitate self-direction.

However, behind my questions about assessment and uncertainty in evaluating anyone in an absolute manner there does reside (in my view) a set of skills that serve to hold and shape work with language in a complex world. I believe we need a grammar, syntax, and semantics of clarity, coherence, depth, and breadth. My assumption at the beginning of the term is that all of the students taking this course possess the requisite skills, talents, and propensities needed to be clear, cogent, and complete. I admit that the standards I refer to are objectively stated and subjectively enacted. My assessment will be based on the quality and content of expressed thought as exhibited in both written assignments and presentations and participation.

Grading Criteria for Written Work (adapted from the DPLS Academic papers rubric)

Content Criteria:

The content of papers should reflect the level and style of content in readings and discussions. There is an expectation that doctoral students will reach outside of their comfort zone in terms of appropriation of ideas, concepts, and frameworks. The substance of papers and other writings will be weighed against the general level of discourse in meetings and the style and density of expression of the readings. On the other hand, papers should not be too wide in scope. The art of scholarly writing is (in part) to go into a narrow area deeply and show its relevance to the wider literature.

Thought and Expression Criteria

Student writing should raise vital questions or issues, formulating them clearly and precisely. I will be looking for evidence of breadth and depth and the insightful, in-depth analysis of complex ideas. Main points should be developed and supported with relevant information and references that are appropriately incorporated.

The organization and logic of your writing is critical. The expectation is for well focused, well organized, and well reasoned conclusions. The writing should flow with the reader not getting lost or having to work to determine what you are saying.

There is also an expectation that your writing/thinking has an open and inclusive character when exploring alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as appropriate, their assumptions, implications, and/or practical consequences.

Technical Criteria

Your writing should be clear and demonstrate a high level of vocabulary through careful word choice. Sentences should be constructed skillfully and purposefully. Transitions between paragraphs and sections are important and will be evaluated for their efficacy in weaving your concepts, themes, and purposes together. Summaries and conclusions are also vital elements of good writing and will be evaluated based on their appropriateness and effectiveness.

Of course grammar, punctuation, and spelling are expected to be flawless. Careful proof reading of your paper is a basic expectation.

Papers, unless otherwise noted are to be completed in APA style. References should be cited properly within the text and a complete reference list must be provided. Appropriate use of headings will also be noted.

Point/Grade correspondence:

95-100% = A 90-94.99% = A- 85-90% = B 80-84.99% = B-

Table 1: Class Meeting Agenda

June 16, 23, 27 (Friday), 30; July 7, 14, 21

Pre-class Readings Pre-class Writings Class Theme #1

6/16 (Hirschhorn, 1997) *Cooper & Burrell (Hatch, et al, 2006, pp.

ix-62) (Shafritz, et al, 2011, pp.

ix-9, 401-472)

5-page essay reflection on: (Hirschhorn, 1997) and Cooper & Burrell.

Introduction & dialogue on Modernism & Postmodernism, Transaction & Transformation, and housekeeping

#2 6/23

(Shafritz, et al, 2011, pp. 31-91, 473-543)

Post reading notes on Bb

Organization Theory & Society, Management

Group Presentation I: Classics Ch.1 & 9

#3 6/27 (Fri)

(Hatch, etal, 2006, pp. 63-139)

(Shafritz, et al, 2011, pp. 92-148, 338-400)

*Blackboard posting

Post reading notes on Bb

Culture, Change, Reform, Transform, Transmute, & Transcend

Group Presentation II: Classics Ch.2 & 7

#4 6/30

(Hatch, et al, 2006, pp. 141-250)

(Shafritz, et al, 2011, pp. 149-196, 271-337)

*Blackboard posting

Post reading notes on Bb

Power, Politics, Control, Conflict, Motivation, Organizational Behavior, Hierarchy

Group Presentation III Classics Ch.3 & 6

#5 7/7

(Hatch, et al, 2006, pp. 251-345)

(Shafritz, et al, 2011, pp. 197-270) (re-read pp. 401-472 )

*Blackboard posting

Post reading notes on Bb Organization Theory 3-

page essay (Hatch, 2006) Due – Post to Bb for peer-review

Economics, Technology, Structures, Space, & Structuring and Organizing, Environments

Group Presentation IV: Classics Ch.4 & 5, & 8

#6 7/14

(Wenger, 1999, pp. xi-277)

*Blackboard posting

Post reading notes on Bb

Identity, Participation & Reification, Meaning & Practice Group Presentation V: Wenger Ch 1-9 Café conversation capstone paper idea

#7 7/21

*Blackboard posting Post reading notes on Bb Organizational Design Change Capstone presentations and Wrap Up

on organizational change/design 7/28 Capstone paper on

Organization Theory

* Readings available in the class meeting folders, Course Documents on Blackboard

Required Texts Hirschhorn, L. (1997). Reworking authority : Leading and following in the post-modern

organization. Cambridge, Mass. USA: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-58173-8

Hatch, M. J. a. C., A.L (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. IS BN – 0199260214

Shafritz, J. M., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2011). Classics of organization theory (7th ed. / [edited by] Jay M. Shafritz, J. Steven Ott, Yong Suk Jang ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. - B004ONKDTM

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice; Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN - 0521663636

Other Required Readings will be provided on Blackboard

Some Related Literature:

Agre, P. (1997). Computation and human experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning. Malden. Massachusetts: Blackwell Business.

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bowker, G. C., Leigh-Starr, S., Turner, W., Gasser Les, & Eds. (1997). Social Science, Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work: Beyond the great divide. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Brown, J., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organizations: A social-practice perspective. organization science, 12(2), pp.198-213.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational technology, 33(3), 10-15.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Burke, W. W. (2002). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Douglas, M. (1986). How institutions think. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

Fu, C. & Bergeon, R. (2011). A Tao model: Rethinking modern leadership for transformation. In G. R. Hickman & J. Barbour (Eds.), Leadership for transformation (ILA Building Leadership Bridges). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

Fu, P. P. & Fu, C. (2009). The Tao of value leadership and the power of interdependence. In D.

Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations (Cambridge companions to management) (pp. 355-71): Cambridge University Press.

Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins Hunter, L. (1999). Natural Capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Heft, H. (2001). Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James's Radical Empiricism. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hickman, G. R. & Barbour, J. (Eds.). (2011). Leadership for transformation (ILA Building Leadership Bridges). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.

Ho, M.-W. (1991). The role of action in evolution: Evolution by process and the ecological approach to perception. Cultural Dynamics, 4(3), 336-354.

Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind - Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. New York: McGraw Hill.

Illich, I. (1973). Tools for conviviality. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.

Jaques, E. (2002). The Life and Behavior of Living Organisms: A General Theory. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Jaques, E., Clement, S. D., & Lessem, R. (1994). Executive leadership: A practical guide to managing complexity (developmental management) (paperback): Wiley-Blackwell.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning; Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge; The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (C. W. Morris, Ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

Nonaka, I. (1997). A new organizational structure. In L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in Organizations (pp. 99-135). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Rousseau, D. M. (1997). Organizational behavior in the new organizational era. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 515 -532).

Salomon, G. (. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schein, E. (1997). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning in the 21st century. WWW (Cambridge, MA), http://learning.mit.edu/res/wp/three.html.

Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody : The power of organizing without organizations. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN - 9781594201530

Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic Books.

Strauss, A. L. (1993). Continual permutations of action. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions : The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tjosvold, D. & Wisse, B. (Eds.). (2009). Power and interdependence in organizations

(Cambridge companions to management): Cambridge University Press. Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art, new ideas for a world of chaotic change. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (pp.175-190).

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as Action. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zohar, D. (1997). ReWiring the corporate brain: Using the new science to rethink how we structure and lead organizations: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.