|
|
The beauty of a prism lies not only in its ability to refract light, but also in the varying perspectives each angle offers. Likewise the analysis of organisations is often encapsulated in three differing viewpoints. They are namely, the structural-rational, symbolic-cultural and the political approaches. Each approach individually though lacks an element or two that inhibits our ability to understand organisations fully. An integration of all three frameworks provides a fuller picture as attractive as a prism in its full glory. The structural framework focuses on the rational and formal aspects of organisations. This approach is usually associated with excessive bureaucracy and rigidity. According to the structural framework, conflict, if and when it occurs, is due to a lack of differentiation in responsibilities. The result is a highly structured Weberian system, with a clear cut division of labour among positions which enables a high degree of specialisation. Also, the scope of authority of supervisors over subordinates is clearly demarcated, thus reducing the potential for conflict (Blau, p 30). McDonald’s manifests such a Weberian system, unlike most other organizations which allow their employees more latitude. As such, conflict does occur, and people have to cope. According to Blau and Schoenherr (1973, p 22-23), structure is ‘independent of the personalities and psychological dispositions of individual members”, and that “organisations are not people”. To a person who lives in a world of logic and rationality, at first glance the symbolic-cultural frame appears not to carry much weight. According to the symbolic framework, what is assumed to be rational is not as rational as it appears and is actually symbolic in nature. Tests and interviews are established elements of organisational practice. According to the symbolic approach, the data produced from these is of doubtful validity; but the process communicates a sense of exclusivity and fairness to those selected. This approach thus rationalises the irrational aspects of organisations for analysts. Rational systems pursue the prediction of outcome from the starting block of activity. The symbolic system on the other hand, looks at the outcome and attempts to explain the cause of it. This is explained by man’s need to have a sense of completion and a need to give meaning to events (Bolman and Deal, p 148- 189). As can be seen, the structural-rational frame dwells in the cold, rational realm, and the symbolic-cultural frame belongs to an almost supernatural plane. The former approach does not consider the effect of humans and is relatively unitarist in analysing organisations. Argyris’ (1973, p 76-90) critique of Blau, emphasizes that the latter does not consider the separate components of the organisation, i.e. the human perspective. Argyris (1957, p 6) highlights that it is next to impossible to understand humans, as a result of which understanding organisations is also difficult. The latter frame is reminiscent of humans in the ancient times- superstitious and seeing omens in the way the wind blows or the flight of a bird. It may lack rationality, but it helps to explain some outcomes which would otherwise not make sense. It thus provides an alternative perspective.
|
