bahçeşehir university social science institutions ph d. business program management &...

1

Bahçeşehir UniversitySocial Science InstitutionsPh D. Business ProgramManagement & OrganizationOrganizational TheoryProf. Dr. Atilla DİCLE

Goals, Power and ControlPrep. by: İlhan ÇİFTÇİ

01 January 2010

Bahçeşehir University - Organizational Theory

2

Organizational Goal

5 alternatives uses for organizational goals

Cognitive – Rational Approach

Cathetic (Motivational) – Natural System

Symbolic – Institutional Approach

Justification

Evaluative


3

Individual & Organizational Goals

Simon (1964: 1997) has most forcefully urged the distinction btw individual goals that govern a participant’s decision to join or remain in an organization, and organizational goals that are expected to govern decisions of individuals as participants.


4

Organizational Goal &The Dominant Coalition

The most satisfactory basis for adressing the question of who sets organizational goals is provided by Cyert and March (1963)

Acc. to The Classical Economist’s is to point to the goals of the entrepreneur and to equate the organization’s goals within this person’s objectives.

Acc. To Cyert and March; organizational goals being set by a negotiation process that occurs among members of the dominant coalition.

Cyert and March


5

Organizational Goal &The Dominant CoalitionWhat Factors Affect the Size and Composition of the Dominant Coalition

Participants and Stakeholder

Owners and ManagersLaborBoundary RolesExternal Actors

Modes of Capital

Size of Coalition

Uses of Power

Missues of PowerCrimeCorruption


6



Owners and Managers : Those who own property, whether in the form of capital, land, machinery, or disposable goods, have “ a socially defensible right to make a decision on how to use” these resources.

Owners delegate control over resources to managers who are expected to act on their behalf.

Labor: Organizations depend on the energies and skills of workers who carry out the work of transforming resources.


7



Boundary Roles: Enviromental changes lead to change organization unit and power. Environmental change is determined internal structure

External Actors: Power over organizations is not restricted to those within its formal boundaries (Mintzberg, 1983)The power of external constituencies to shape organizational objectives has been clear. (Selznick 1983)“Political economy” perspective provides a systematic framework for examining both internal and external sources of power affecting organizations (Zald 1970)


8


Modes of CapitalThe power of capital resides in

Financial Capital: Property, ownership, cash, investments, creditworthiness

Human Capital: Personel attributes and skills, education and experince

Social Capital: Putnam defines “those features of social organization, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”


9


Size of CoalitionAcc. Galbraith (1967) one of the most fundamental changes in the organization of the modern corporation has been the shift from an entrepreneurial mode in which a single powerful person dominates the enterprise to a flatter structure in which power is more widely diffused.

Thompson (1967) argues that the size of the dominat coalition, is affected both by the nature of organization’s technology and by its task and institutional environments.


10


Uses of Power:

What difference, if any, does it make when power shifts from one group to another or is shared with a wider range of individuals and by the organization.


11


Missues of Power:Crime: A useful distinction differentiates criminal acts organizations into “occupational” and “corporate” crimes.Occupational Crimes are committed by individual employees against their employers for their own gain.Corporate Crimes are committed by individual employees acting on behalf of the corporation itself.Corruption: is by no means limited to developing societies, or societies in transition to a differing mode of governance. Enron, Worldcl etc.


12

Anarchies, Adhocracies & Learning

Rational System Perspective -> Bureaucratic – Administrative Model

Natural and Open System Perspective -> Coalitional – Bargaining Model

All systems provide for the development of a set of goals by which organizational decisions can be made.


13

Anarchies, Adhocracies & LearningDecisions and Structures

Thompson and Tuden (1959) focus on decisions and structures by constrcuting typology that combines 2 dimensons:

How much agreement there is among organizational particiapnats about the goals or preferred outcomes of the system, How much agreement there is about the means or the causal processes by which these outcomes can be realized.


14

Anarchies, Adhocracies & LearningDecisions and Structures

The cross – classification of ends – and – means distinction produces 4 types of decision contexts, each of which is calls for different decision strategy:

Beliefs About Causation Preferences About Outcomes

Agreement Disagreement

Agreement Computation Compromise

[bureaucracy] [legislature]

Disagreement Judgement Inspiration

[collegium] [charismatic leader]


15


Organized Anarchies

Acc. to March and his colleagues, decision making under conditions of “inconsistent and ill – defined preferences,” “uncler technologies”, and “fluid participation” lead to change or shift in members decision. These conditions are identified Organized Anarchy.


16

Anarchies, Adhocracies & LearningGarbage Can Model

This Model is not Directly comparable to the earlier models, bcs the garbage can model deals with the Pattern or flow of multiple decisions within Organizations. It ensures that and help us think of the whole organiztion and the frequent decisions begin made by managers throughout. The unique characteristic of the garbage can model is that the decision process is not seen as a sequence of steos that begins with a problem end with a solution.Indeed, problem identification and problem solution may not be connected to each other, An idea may be proposed as a solution when no problem is specified, A Problem may exist and never generateA solution and so forth.

James March and his collegous

developed the Organized Anarchy


17

Anarchies, Adhocracies & LearningTurbulent Environments

A major factor often accounting for the absence of clearly specified goals is the nature of some organizational environments. If environments are turbulent, then it is difficult to establish clear and specific objectives around which to design a structure and orient participant activities.

Unstable enviroments undermine clear and consistent goalsi just as they unsettle rigid formalized structures.


18


Conceptions of Goals and Theoretical Models

Grandori (1987) argues that there is a close relation between an analyst’s conception of organizational goals and the choice of a theorretical model for explaining organization structure.

She takes contingency theory as the base line model, a model assumes that organizations are pursuing single or consistent objectives that are capable of rationally adapting their structure to fit changing circumstances.


19

Control Systems

Power: Emerson views power as relational, situational, and at least potentially reciprocal.

Power in Formal Organization: It is determined at least in part by design: sanctioning powers are attached to positions, avaliable to any individual who occupies one, regardless of his or her personal qualities. Power is not personal but structıral.

Power in Informal Organization: It is based on the characteristics of individuals – individual differences that can function as resources allowing some to reward and punish others.

FORMAL ORGANİZASYON

(İŞ TANIMLARI, DEPARTMANLAR AYIRMALAR,ÖRGÜTSEL HİYERAŞİ, PLÂN VE PROGRAMLAR,

ÜRETİM VE ETKİNLİK ÖLÇEKLERİ VS…)

INFORMAL ORGANİZASYON

(GÜÇ VE ETKİLEME, GRUPLAR VE ÖZELLİKLERİ,AÇIKLIK VE GÜVEN KONUSUNDAKİ ALGILAR,

ROL ALGILAMALARI, İHTİYAÇLAR, HİSLER,ARZULAR, YÖNETİCİYE DUYULAN GÜVEN,

KİŞİLERARASI İLİŞKİLER, VS…)

Subordinates

Manager Superordinate

Colleagues


22

Tannenbaum Graph (1968)Amount of

ControlExercised

A very great deal

A great deal

Quite a bit

Some

Little or None

Hierachical Echelons

Top Management Managers

Second Line Supervision

First Line Supervision

Rank and File

B

X

A


23

AuthorityAcc. Weber (1947): No organization is likely to be content with establishing a power structure; in addition, it will attempt to create am authority structure. Most social scientists define authority as ligitimate power. Acc. to Dornbusch and Scott (1975) mentioned two types of authority : endorsed and authorized

Endorsed Power or Authority of endorsement: Social norms that regulate power relations provide the legitimate control structures, Who –what group of participants- defines and enforces these norms. In most informal groups, there is only one possible source: the set of participants who are subject to the exercise of power and hence are subordinates of the power wielder. This subordinate group can limit and regulate the exercise of power over them by a superordinate.


24

Authority

Authorized power or Authority by authorization: A familiar safeguard built into most hierarchies is teh principle of appeal, by which subordinates who feel that their immediate superior is making unfair or unreasonable demands on them, may turn to their superior’s boss with the expectation that he or she will enforce authority norms that curb the superior’s power.


25

Questions and Explanations

bahçeşehir university social science institutions ph d. business program management &...

Documents

organizational objectives

organizations goals

individual goals

external sources of

participants decision

financial capital

form of capital

atilla dcle goals