dreams of humanization nord[1]

7/30/2019 Dreams of Humanization Nord[1]

1/7

Conceptual Nwhose educat ion was interrupted years before.This challenge would necessari ly begin with asizable element of "brainwashing," gett ing r idof deeply ingrained but now anachronistic waysof th inking.

Given the comprehensiveness and diff icultyof this re-education operation, a f irst more spe-cif ic conclusion takes off from a saying in ourlanguage "you can't get there from here". Inpr incip le , our hypothet ica l "Rip Van Winkle"could surely be "retreaded". But who among us,given this choice, would not prefer to take oninstead a brand-new MBA who had spent thelast 20 years daily and deeply immersed in thew orld in wh ich he wi l l now have to funct ion?A second, more concrete conclusion looksat implications more broadly. Fulmer and Wren

refer to Ecclesiastes 1:9 where it is observedthere is no thin g new unde r the sun. Perhapthe level of fun dam entals, c ivi l ization is always has been confronting the same plems, forever ho ping that "this t im e " therehand a real key to their so lution . Herecourse, is Sisyphus, rolling his stone again again up the hi l l , ali of the t ime knowing thwil l immediately tumble down again. But i f is the relevant image here, we nevertheless no c hoice but to solve age-old problem s aswe can with the att i tudes, understandings, skills now at our disposal undismayed byprospect of having again and again to endeto solve the same problems by putting to wto the best of our ability what we have leain the meant ime.

REFERENCESFulmer, Robert M., The New Management (New York:The Mac millan Com pany, 1974).Fulmer, Robert M., and Daniel A. Wren. "Is There Any-th ing 'New' in Management?" journal of Management,V o l . 2 , No. 2 (1977), 71-75.

3. Hilda ge, H. T., T. G. Mar ple , and F. L. M eye nbe rNew Management (London: McDonald and Evans, 1

Dreams of Humanization and the Realities of PowerWALTER R. NO RDWashington University

For several decades Am erican organ izationalpsychologists have dreamed of and sought tocreate humanized organizations. While i t is notWalter R. Nord (Ph.D. Washington University) is r'rofessorof Organizational Psychology at the Graduate School of Busi-ness Adminis tration at Washington University, St. Louis, Mis-souri.

Received 7/17/77; Accepted 9/28/77; Revised 11/16/77.

clear exactly what a humanized organizatiovarious writers seem to agree that in humanorga niza tions me mb ers are : (a) treated as rather than as means; (b) engaged in meafu l , challenging work; (c) encouraged to dev1 This manusc ript is an extension of a paper presen ted1976 meetings of the American Psychological AssociaWash ing ton , DC.


2/7

y of Manag ement Review - July 1978

t ly and with a dign ity w hic h places them we ll

deci-ons wh ich affect them direc tly.As writers have dreamed of organizations

hese features, often they have appeared to as-timists have com e to see them as in -

nt of managers. Recently these dreams

effective a nd t o survive.A number of things po inted towards the nec-

envi-) a youn ger, m ore m ob i le, bettered wor k fo rce; (d) a grow th in the co nflu -ons of po we r; (e) a change in man agerial philos-

f) a new con cep t of po we r based on co llabora-

Why have organizations been so resistant to

ay in the dynam ics of org anizations .The work ing def in i t ion of power used heres derived fr om the w ork of Adam s (2) and Bach-in f lu-

s opp osed to o ther goals.

altering the flow of resources and energy so that least some of the five aspects of humanizatilisted above are given increased emphasis.The quest for humanized organizations cbe b roke n in two parts. First, consider the desof systems in which the achievement of humaized goals and organizational success on trational criteria of effectiveness are mutually sportive. Secondly, consider those cases whthe two sets of outcomes are in conflict. It is tsecond set of cases where consideration of poer provides insights into why organizations harem ained so resistent to p ower sharing, to jand dign i f ied treatment of individuals, and to provision of chal lenging and growth producwork. Examination of four postulates about per and organizations wil l help to focus on soof these constraints.P I : Organ izations are com posed of coalitiwhich compete with one another for sources, energy, and influence .

Organizat ions are a mixture of commgoals, individual goals, and sub-group goConfl ict among competing parties for resourand energies is seldom completely resolved, the co nfl ictin g parties are often arrayed inum ber of coal i tions.As Zaieznik (23) argued, competit ion tocom e a do m inan t co alit ion (or part of one) iintense and an important feature of l i fe inganizat ions. Moreover, competing coal i tare often engaged in what approach zero-games. If one coalit ion exercises dominant ctrol over resources and the allocation procother coalit ions cannot. Sometimes these stgles are reflected in what appear to be the parevolts wh ich result in the ouster of top -leve lpora te o fficials, but, as Zaieznik s how ed,struggles are often more subtle and less stacular. Whi le more information about the mnitude and frequency of these confl icts is nethe climates created by such struggles arel ikely to be condu cive to the achievement ofma nized ends of justice, dig nity, and etc.The focus on organizations as coali


3/7

Conceptual Nhighl ights some other constraints upon human-izat ion. In particular, we discover why turbulentenvironments have not had the straight forwardeffects of humanizing organizations which haveofte n be en assumed. Follow ing the strategic co n-t ingencies theory of organizat ional power de-ve lope d by H ickson et al. (10) and H innings et al.(11), it is clear that changes in the environmentaffect the balance of power among the variouscoalit ions within the organization, because ski l lsand/or resources which were highly valued be-come less important. Other ski l ls and resourceswhich were once un important become h igh lyvalued. Participants whose power is threatenedare apt to respond defensively and/or aggres-sively; those who have gained power are apt toseek to consol idate their posi t ion. Co nsequen t ly,the response of the total organization is not therational adaptation of a harmonious system, butis the resultant vector of c on fl ict in g interests, dis-torted information, and struggle.

Contrary to the beliefs of some organiza-tional behaviorists, because rapidly changingenvironments introduce power struggles wi th inorganizat ions, turbulent environments may bein conf l ict wi th humanizing organizat ions. Themore turbu lent the envi ronment , the more per-vasive and strong the result ing inte rnal s trife maybe. There is little reason to expect that the war-ring parties wil l treat each other in humanizedways, and the scars, particularly when the re-sources and rights of one or more parties havebeen reduced or el iminated, are apt to be slowto heal.P2 : Various coalitions will seek to protect theirinterests and positions of influence by m od-erating environme ntal pressures and theireffects.

It is typically assumed that rapidly changingenvironments humanize organizat ions becausethey induce derout in izat ion and consequent lycreate the need for a large num ber of orga niza-tional participants to exercise greater discretionand to use a w ide variety of the ir skills and talents.Thompson's (22) analysis suggests that, while in-

creased discretion may occur, such increasenot be pervasive because members of the dnant coali t ion are often effective in routinthe organization's core technology and proing i t f rom f luctuat ions in the environmWhile there may be an increase in size odominant coalition, i f the co re techn ology isquately b uffere d, the change in the e nvironmay affect very few people.For example, consider an automobilefacing changes in materials, governmentallations, and consumer preferences. The efof these changes are frequently absorbed bgine ering and othe r techn ical adjustments. Tis at best a small chance that operatives oassembly l ine wil l experience signif icantly variety in their work or exercise more discrMembers of dominant coal i t ions, operat inder the norms of rationali ty, are motivatel imit the discretion of lower level participanorder to avoid disruptions in the operatiocore technologies. Thus, whi le turbulentronments may force the dominant coal i t idilute its power slightly, there is no assuthat this di lution wil l humanize the work or even most people.P3: The unequal distribution of power has non-humanizing effects.

The unequal distribution of power stimulates outcomes which are contrary to of the characteristics of humanized orgat ions. Some of these outcomes stem frominf luence of p owe r inequal i ties on the powothers are due to the influence of power ineit ies on the less po w erf ul.The Powerful Thompson (22) notethe dominant coal i t ion frequent ly at tempdesign structures which reduce the discretlower level participants. Often, the discretlower level participants is l imited by expliccisions made by those in authority. As poscientists such as Bachrach and Baratz (3gested, one of the most significant advanthe p ow erfu l have is the pow er of no n-de the abil i ty to suppress an d/ or thw art cha


4/7

y of Manag ement Review - July 1978

s inev itable.In add it ion to the effect of reduc ing the abil-

A n um be r of studies (12, 13) have show n

. . . the control of power triggers a chain ofevents, which, in theory, at least, goes likethis: (a) with the control of power goes in-creased temptations (sic) to influence others'behavior, (b) as actual influence attempts in-crease, there arises the belief that the behav-ior of others is not self-controlled, that it iscaused by the powerholder, (c) hence, a de-valuation of their performance. In addition,with increased influence attempts, forces aregenerated with the more powerful to (d) in-crease psychological distance from the lesspowerful and view them as objects of manip-ulation (12, p. 40).

a non -hum anize d fashion.Overall, it appears that the possession of the

control the ir ow n outcomes b ut, in Mc Gre g-eople to adop t Theory X assumptionstheir subordinates.

Effects on the Less Powerful The uneqdistr ibut ion of power has com pleme ntary, nohumanizing effects on the less powerful. Examples are: Harrington's (9) description of "twistespir i t" of the American poor and the "cul ture poverty"; Lefcourt's (14) work on the psycholoof powerlessness; Gouldner's (8) observation feelings of dependence that result in servile attudes toward superiors; and Nemeth's (15) rport that inequalit ies in power inhibit coopertive behav ior; these studies reveal the de hu m aizing consequences of "powerlessness". Similarly, Culbert's (5) work reveals how relativepowerless individuals become trapped by shareassumptions which make them vulnerable to ecess influence and induce them to accept tstatus quo. Thus, it seems reasonable to hypotesize that humanized relationships wil l be moprobable when there is relative equality in poer among individuals than when gross discreancies exist.P4: The exercise of powe r within organizatiois one very crucial aspect of the exercise powe r within the larger social system.

One of the most productive outcomes assessing the relationship between power anhumanized organizations may well be that sudiscussions direct us to the wo rk of po liticscientists. The ir ideas po int to some im po rtaomissions in thinking about power and controf work organizations.Dahl (6) provides a basis for exploring somof these considerations. He observed that Am erica we have m ade a strange ideo logical dit inction about the exercise of power. Power eercised in polit ical organizations ought to b

publ ic and democrat ic, but power within ecnomic organizations need not be democratand ought to be left in the hands of the owneor managers of the f i rm. In his word s:. . . the prevailing ideology prescribes "pri-vate" enterprise, that is, firms managed by of-ficials who are legally, if not de facto responsi-ble to private shareholders... It is widely tak-en for granted that the only appropriate formfor managing economic enterprise is a pri-


5/7

Conceptual N, vately ow ned f irm . . . Ord inari ly technical ar-guments in favor of an alternative must be ofenormous weight to overcome the purely ide-olog ical bias in favor of the private fir m (6, p117-118).

Dahl was m ore concerned with macro level anal-ysis (e.g. the fact that the given magnitude ofmany decisions made by General Motors, theycannot reasonably be considered private mat-ters) than he was with democracy in the work-place.Pateman (19) extended Dahl's ideas into thework place. She suggested that since organiza-tions are so impo rtan t in the l ives of pe ople , aful ly democratic society is possible only i f demo-ratic voting is extended to organizations. Sheaintained that unless such an extension isade, vot ing and representat ion are doomed toe largely formal matters. Pateman wrote:

The aim of organizat ional dem ocracy is de-mocracy. It is not primarily increased produc-tivity, efficiency, or better industrial relations(even though these things may even resultfrom organizational democracy); rather it is tofurther just ice, equali ty, freed om , the rights ofcitizens, and the protection of interests of ci t i -zens, all fam iliar dem ocratic aims (19, p IS -IS).It is only a radical, participatory approach toorganizational democracy that is l ikely to fos-ter the expertise, skills, and confidence, bothin the daily work process and in the exerciseof democrat ic cit izenship within the enter-prise, that are vital if mem bers of the org aniza-t ion as a who le are to be equ ipped to m eetthe chal lenge of control that wi l l come fromthe tec hno struc ture (19, p. 21).This argum ent leads to a direc t co nsidera-

ganization in a dem ocratic society. Inquiry this question has potential ly radical implicatiWhen we start to discuss power in this wayare be gin nin g to ask as Ellerman (7) d id , "W hthe f i rm?" We may come to inquire aboutrights by wh ich c ertain individuals or groups exercise control and come to consider altetive bases of pow er as means of hum aniz edganizations and to a more ful ly democraticciety. We may discover that equal access to per (political democracy) is a necessary (but tainly not suff icient) condit ion for humansocial organization.

ConclusionThe feelings which underl ie this art icle be sum ma rized by a com parison of the Golden Rules. First, many of us who seek tomanize organizations dream of organizatwhere the powerful people either out of selfterest or out of moral commitment, fo l low first (or the normative) Golden Rule "Do uothers as you would have them do unto yoBy contrast, the second or th e desc riptive golrule, w hic h I f irst saw on th e wa ll in a men's ro

at Washington University, states, "Them that the gold makes the rules".The distribution of power and resourcesexisting organizations supports humanized retionships only to a l imited degree. Humanizaof such systems is by no means ine vita ble, bustead may require considerable struggle. Analand faci l i tation of the process wil l be aidedgreater emphasis on the role of power and realization that organizations are political system bed ded in larger poli t ical systems.REEERENCES

"A Pirandellian Prison," New Vork Times Magazine,Ap ril8(19 73), pp. 38-40,49.Adams, R. N. Energy and Structure: A Theory of SocialPower (Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1975).Bachrach, P., and M. S. Baratz. Power and Poverty: The-ory and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press,1970).

4. Bennis, W. G. "A Funny Thing Ha ppened on the Wthe Future," American Psychologist, Vol. 25 (1970),608.Culbert, S. A. The Organization Trap (New York: BBoo ks, 1974).6. Dah l, R. A. After the Revolutions' Authority in a Goociety (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970).

5.


6/7

of Man agement Review - July 1978 67Ellerman, D. "The 'Ow ners hip of Firm' Is a M yt h, " Ad-ministration and Society,Vo l. 7 (1975), 27-42.Gouldn er, A. W. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology(New York: Basic Books, 1970).Harr ington, M. The Other America (Baltimore: PenguinBooks, 1962).Hick son , D. J., C. R. Hining?,, C. A. Lee, R. E. S chneck, and|. M. Pennings. "A Strategic Contingencies' Theory of In-traorganizational Power," Adm(nis(ra(/ve Science Quar-(er/y. Vo l. 19 (1971), 216-229.Hinin gs, C. R., D. ). Hick so n, ). M. P ennings , and R. E.Schneck. "Structural Conditions of IntraorganizationalPower," Administrative Science Quarterly, Vo l. 19 (1974),22-44.Kipnis, D. "Does Power Corrupt?" journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, Vo l. 24 (1972), 33-41.Kipnis, D., P.). Castel l , M . Gerg en, and D. M auch . "M eta -morphic Effects of Power," journal of Applied Psychol-ogy,\o\.(>^ (1976), 127-135.Lefcourt, H. M. "The Function of the Il lusions of Controland Freedom," American Psychologists, Vol. 28 (1973),417-425.

15. Nemeth, C. "Bargaining and Reciprocity," PsychologicBulletin, Vo l. 74 (1970), 297-308.16. Nord, W. R. "The Failure of Current Applied BehaviorScience: A Marxian Perspect ive," /ourna/oMpp/ ied 8hav iora/S cien ce, Vo l. 10 (1974), 557-578.17. Nord, W. R. "Economic and Socio-Cultural Barriers

Humanizing Organizations," in H. Meltzer and F. Wickert (Eds.), Humanizing Organizational Behavi(Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1976), 175-193.18. O'Day, R. "Intimidation Rituals: Reactions to Reformjournal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vo l. 10 (1974), 3 7386.19. Pateman, C. "A Contribution to the Poli t ical Theory Organizational Democracy," Administration and Socety, Vo l. 7 (1975), 5-26.20. Rose nhan, D. L. " O n Being Sane in Insane Places," Scence, Vol . 179 (1973), 250-258.21. Sw ingle, P. G. The Management of Power (Hillsdale, N.JLawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1976).22. Thompson, J. D. Organizations in Action (New YorMcG raw -Hil l , 1967).23. Zaieznik, A. "Power and Politics in Organizational LifeHarvard Business Review, Vo l. 48 (1970), 47-60.

The Illusion of Contingency Theory as a General TheoryJUSTIN G. LONGENECKERUniversity of Washington

CHARLES D.PRINGLEUniversity of Kentucky

The quest of early writers for a gene ral the-

essor of M ana gem ent, Baylor Unive rsity, Wa co, Texas.

The Capitol Campus, Middletown, Pennsylvania.Received 10/12/77; Accepted 1/23/76.

1930s prove d t o be less than universal in the ir application when subjected to close examination the laboratory of organization l i fe. The formgarden of management "principles" becamtramp led to the extent that it resembled a " j u ng l e " (11)..V As Festinger (5) obs erv ed, co gn itive dissoance is uncomfortable. Management professoand related scholars, with the rest of humanitstrive to make sense of their respective areas


7/7

dreams of humanization nord[1]

Documents