organizational theory perspectives: a point of view

7/27/2019 Organizational Theory Perspectives: A Point of View

1/13

Organization Theory 1

Organization Theory Perspectives: A Point of View

William Huckabee

OM8010

Organizational Theory

Capella University

April 30, 2009

Dr. Maudie Holm


2/13


Organization Theory Perspectives: A Point of View

Organizations can be an effective tool for organization goal accomplishment, minimizing

conflict, and reducing organization-environment uncertainties (Scott, 1961). This suggests that

organizations are among the most complex systems imaginable (Daft and Weick, 1984, p.

284). The same can be suggested for organization theory (OT); many organization theories and

perspective exists for the evaluation and design of effective organizations (Tsoukas and

Knudsen, 2003). However, this study concentrates on three perspectives of OT; the modernist,

symbolic-interpretive, and the postmodern perspectives.

What is presented in this study is to first, compare and contrast the three perspectives in

terms of their underlying assumptions. Second, this study provides some possibilities on how

these perspectives can assist practitioners in designing and managing organizations, and finally,

provide recommendations on which perspective appears to provide the most utility.

Modernist Perspective

The modernist perspective began in the enlightenment period (Cooper and Burrell,

1988, p. 94). This perspective is rooted in early systems thinking and is characterized by

uncertainty; meaning that researchers see this perspective as problems that are defined in terms

of certainty and uncertainty (p. 95) and in terms of constraints and contrasting (p. 95)

choices. Furthermore, the assumptions of the modernist researcher that expressing organizations

in measurable terms that the organization can be viewed and understood in a rational and logical

fashion.

Moreover, from the modernist point of view, organizations are real and are composed of

mutually dependent variables (Scott, 1961, p. 16); meaning that modernists believe that what is

being observed can be measured. Further, Chia (1995) suggests that modernists look at


3/13


organizations in terms of causality. For instance, from this point of view, a researcher can

determine why an organizations structure changes based on some change in the firms

environment. This suggests that the realness of an organization is the causal link between social

and material (p. 585) clashes.

Finally, Clegg (as cited in Hassard, 1994) suggests that the foundation of the modernist

perspective lies in differentiation; what he calls the division of labor (p. 308); it is in the

organization where differentiation takes places. In fact, Hickson, Hinings, and Schneck (1971)

agree and add that it is the division of labor that assists practitioners in dealing with uncertainty

in their environment.

Symbolic-Interpretive Perspective

The symbolic-interpretive perspective is associated with two views; the institutional

theory and the enacted environment theory (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006, p. 85), which the former

is concerned with the structure of the organization and the later with the actions taken by actors

within the organization based on some event in the actors environment. Here an actor can be

described as an individual in an organization; this term and definition can be found throughout

OT literature such as in Scott (1987).

With institutional theory, it must be recognized early on that there are many variations of

this view (Scott, 1987). Scott describes this view as a process of instilling value (p. 493); it is a

process by which individuals come to accept a shared definition of reality (p. 496), and in this

case, by which individuals accept a share definition of an organization. Further, this view can be

associated with actions or events such as the interactions and symbols, symbolically mediated

interactions, and relationships (Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006a), more or less the identification of

symbolic themes (Smircich, 1983, p. 351).


4/13


Scott (1987) suggests that there can be environmental agents that can impose certain

characteristics of an organizations structure, which he defines as imposition by means of

authority (p. 501). Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) suggests that this is a form of coercion (P. 86).

In this respect an organization imposes certain behaviors to deal with the imposition. For

instance, a company in the Aerospace and Defense Industry adopts CMMI and ISO-9000

processes and procedures in reaction to Governmental directives that all defense contractors will

be compliant with these two quality requirements in order to obtain defense contracts. By

developing a culture of quality, the organization is reacting to the changes in their environment,

which requires a certain culture.

Also, Smircich (1983) suggests that symbolic themes are those that inspire social activity

within an organization. Going back to the previous example, symbolic themes of CMMI and ISO

9000 logos on the website and in other areas of the firm would help to codify quality in the

actors within the organization, creating quality in the actors behaviors. Accordingly, these

themes help actors become acclimated to the organization through the interpretation and creation

of a sense of belonging to the organization.

The other view, the enacted environment theory can be associated with deciphering,

forms of meaning, and construction of reality (Martens, 2006, p. 84) such as how actors

environmental observations produces certain actionable consequences in an organization (Weick,

1988). Further, Weick suggests that actors often create structures, constraints, and

opportunities (p. 306) where none had existed before.

Smircich and Stubbart (1985) agree. These authors suggest that an organizations

environment is created by the actions of the actors within an organization. Moreover, Smircich

and Stubbart stipulates that the enacted environment is nothing more than an ambiguous field of


5/13


experience (p. 726) offering an organization not threats nor opportunities, just just material and

symbolic records of action (p. 726), thus, the actors create both the organization and the

environment by connecting lines among events, objects, and situations (p. 726) as to bring

meaning to hem and then distributing that meaning throughout the organization.

Further, the concept of enacted environment requires imagination on the actors part

because this theory is associated not with concrete measurable relationships like that of the

modern perspective. This theory abandons (Smircich and Stubbart, 1985, p. 727) real objects.

It is more about refining the existing definition of reality (Abolafia and Kilduff, 1988, p. 180).

As an example of this concept, an Aerospace and Defense company department was

constantly under pressure to hire more subject matter experts to fill other positions by their

counterparts on the customers team. The appearance was that the department had too many

employees focusing on one area of the project versus spreading out the resources to other areas

of the project.

The misconception originated because the contractors departments name was

Organizational Change Management (OCM) whereas the customers departments name is Life

Cycle Logistics Division (LCLD), with a sub function of OCM where two employees performed

the activities of the area, where as the contractors OCM department contained over 12

employees performing the activities within the department. This led to a tremendous amount of

political shuffling between the customer and the contractor.

Smircich and Stubbart (1985) suggest that this inferred that there was a poor quality

interaction between the organization and the environment. As a result of the political shuffling,

the contractor reorganized and re-designated the department as Life Cycle Logistics Support


6/13


Division (LLSD) with a sub function of OCM with two employees performing the activities of

the department.

Postmodern Perspective

The postmodern perspective is very difficult to define; there is no one school that lends to

the perspective (Parker, 1992). However, Hassard (1994) suggests that postmodernism is the

death of reason (p. 303) and that the world as we see it is formless and fragmented, with no

hidden order; what you see is what you get. Furthermore, Parker suggests that a postmodern

organization is characterized as being numerically and functionally flexible (p. 4) with no clear

power base or spatial location. The postmodern perspective then focuses on the production of

organization versus the organization of production (Parker, P. 5).

Hassard (1994) suggests that the goal of this perspective is to find the correct way to

describe the world out there (p 305). Moreover, postmodernist concentrate on dismantling the

modernists assumptions and practices (Gergen and Thatchenkery, 2005, p. 234); with the

underlying premise is that postmodernists consider modernists rationality as being flawed

primarily because it can guide and actors outward behavior (p. 234). Further, postmodernist

are skeptical of an organizations hierarchy, its centralization, control and integration (Hatch

and Cunliffe, 2006, p. 131) because the issues are not real; they are just words (p. 131).

With that said, Hatch and Cunliffe (2006) suggest that an organization is created by the

tension created between organization and disorganization (p. 131), not by the actors within the

organizations. Also the authors suggest that it is the observer that creates the organization in their

attempt to describe the organization from the outside. However, on the one hand, Cooper and

Burrell (as cited in Parker, 1992) suggests that organizations are power sites that we cannot step

out of; we are all members because the organization is a product of our society. On the other


7/13


hand, Derrida (as cited in Parker, 1992) suggests that organizations and their environments do

not really exist in reality; they appear in the form of language (p. 6). Finally, we see that from

a postmodern perspective organizations are born out of society and they are very subjective

(Gergen and Thatchenkery, 2004).

Discussion and Conclusions

As seen above, the three perspectives offer different views or organizing, which provide

researchers and practitioners a great deal of latitude in creating and evaluating organizations.

However, one should realize that each of these perspectives offer different disputes of reality

(Kreiner, 1992, p. 39). That being said, we take a look at the three disputes of reality closer by

comparing and contrasting each perspective.

As described earlier, the modernist perspectives view of organizing and organizations is

about what is real; what can be measured. On the other hand, the symbolic-interpretive

perspectives view is about symbols and interpreting meaning of these symbols and how

relationships are affected by this sensemaking. The postmodern perspectives view is that there is

no reality and that organization bear little or no relation (Parker, 1992, p.4) to the modernist;

vision of organizing and organizations.

Modernists believe that organizations are a product of the organizations environment

and that the organization and the environment are separate. Symbolic-interpretists believe that

organizations are a product of the actors interpretation of the meaning found in their

environment and that the organization and environment are one; not separate (Smircich and

Stubbart, 1985, p. 727). Moreover, this allows employees to structure their behavior toward the

behavior that is expected in the organization (Smircich, 1983).


8/13


Modernists believe in hierarchies of rationality (Gergen and Thatchenkery, 2004, p.

235) within cultures, which are assigned based to actors based on education level and cultural

backgrounds, among other criteria; modernists look at certain individuals are more worthy of

leadership, position, and wealth (p. 235). Symbolic-interpretists view this as a communal (p.

235) achievement which is a form of communal participation (p. 235). Postmodernists would

view these criteria as representational and would stress on the collectivity (Parker, 1992, p. 7)

of these representations.

As evidenced by the comparisons above, many differences exist between the

underlying assumptions of these perspectives; no compatibility exists among them. This has

important implications in determining how to organize and create effective organizational

structures. With that said, the modernist perspective, specifically, the contingency theory has

great utility in todays economic environment fraught with change, especially from a strategic

management perspective.

For example, the contingency theory can be applied in strategic planning; for a certain set

of organization-environment conditions, and optimal strategy exists. This mirrors the fact that

like a strategy, there is optimal organizational structures that exists based on some reactions

between the organization and it environment (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985).

For instance, environmental forces affect every organization; these forces can originate

from either internal or external to the organization (Zucker, 1987). And the contingency theory

suggests that organizations tend to match their resources to the environmental context

(Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985, p. 421). As the first example suggested above, external forces

can significantly impact the organizations internal operations. Modifications to the

organizations structure must be made to be better competitive (Zucker). On the other hand, if


9/13


the firm does not adapt to the environmental forces, failure rather than success would be the

result (Prescott, 1986).

Further, Prescott (1986) suggests that an organizations environment has a significant

impact on a firms performance, and from a strategists perspective, the environment is a

primary (P. 329) in the organizations success. Here, because the modernist perspective is an

ideal perspective to use when measuring organizational performance against environmental

factors using the contingency theory. For instance, Downey and Slocum (1975) suggest that

long-range trends, regardless of the inherit changes within them, may be highly predictable (p.

565) to an organization

Dalton, Todor, Spendolini, et.al (1980) agree, and add that performance can be measured

in various ways using hard performance criteria (p. 50), such as sales, production, and

services rendered (p. 50), which all originate in the firms environment. The role of contingency

then is to identify the key interactions (p. 50) in the environment and then link them to the

organizations performance.

Furthermore, According to Ginsberg and Venkatraman (1985) when using the

contingency theory much like that as describes by Hatch and Cunliffe (2006), the level of

organizational performance also dictates the range of strategies that available to an organization.

Although strategy can be considered to be a set of responses that an organization tends to choose

as a direction directs a certain organizational structure, management systems, and the choice of

top management (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985, p. 423).

Finally, these three perspectives are much different in their definitions of reality. One

perspective suggests reality, realness, what can be measured. One looks that the symbols and

how actors sense those symbols and apply meaning within the context in organization. The other


10/13


perspective disagrees with everything that the modernists believe in; the world is formless and

fragmented, with no hidden order; what you see is what you get. When looking at these

perspectives, one rings out as having utility with practitioners today, especially for strategists,

which is the contingency theory. This theory will help planners choose the correct organization-

environmental contexts with which to concentrate organizational resources on for future

performance.


11/13


References

Chia, R. (1995). From modern to postmodern organizational analysis. Organization Studies 6(4),

579-604.

Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism, and organizational analysis: An

introduction. Organizational Studies, 9(1), 91-112.

Daft, R.L., & Weick, K.E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems.

Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284-295.

Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., Spendolini, M. J., & Fielding, G. J., et.al. (1980). Organization

structure and performance: A critical review.Academy of Mangement, 5,(000001), 49-64.

Downey, H. K., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). Uncertainty: Measures, research, and sources of

variation.Academy of Management Journal, 18(000003), 562-578.

Hassard, J. (1994). Postmodern organizational analysis: Toward a conceptual framework.

Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 303-324.

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organizational theory: Modern, symbolic, and

postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Hatch, M. J., &

Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006a). Three perspectives of organizational theory. Retrieved

April 18, 2009 from Capella University,

http://courseroom2.capella.edu/webct/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct?

appforward=/webct/startFrameSet.dowebct%3Fforward=manageCourse.dowebct

%26lcid=5726127570111


12/13


Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings. (Jun., 1971). A strategic

contingencies theory of intraorganizational power.Administrative Science Quarterly,

16(2), 216-229.

Gergen, K. J., & Thatchenkery, T. J. (2004). Organization science as social construction:

Postmodern potentials. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2), 228-249.

Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: A

critical review of the empirical research.Academy of Management, 10(000003), 421-433.

Parker, M. (1992). Post-modern organizations or postmodern organization theory? Organization

Studies, 13(1), 1-17.

Prescott, J. E. (1986). Environments as moderators of the relationship between strategy and

performance.Academy of Management Journal, 29(2), 329-346.

Scott, W. G. (1961). Organization theory: An overview and an appraisal. The Journal of the

Academy of Management, 4(1), 7-26.

Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of Institutional Theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,

32(4), 493-511.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science,

Quarterly, 28, 339-358.

Smircich, L., & Stubbart, C. (1985). Strategic management in an enacted world.Academy of

Management, 10(00004), 724-736.


13/13


Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (Eds.). (2003). The oxford handbook of organizational theory:

Meta-theoretical perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations.Journal of Management Studies,

25(4), 305-317.

Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institution theories of organization.Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443-

464.

organizational theory perspectives: a point of view

Documents