Chapter 1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to introduce you to the analytical framework that you will encounter throughout the textbook and the course as a whole.

Course text Read through pages 1–40. As stated in the course information, this is not a typical organisational behaviour (OB) course, so it is important that you understand how and why it is differents. The main point of difference is that each chapter comprises an overview of key contributions to the mainstream study of its topic, followed by a reappraisal of those contributions from a more critical perspective.

What is organisational behaviour?

OB draws upon a range of social scientific disciplines.  Sociology examines behaviour in relation to social, political, psychological and economic conditions that affect it, but in turn are reproduced or reproduced by it.  Psychology concentrates on how individuals think and behave.  Politics focuses on competitive struggles for political power and influence.  Economics examines how wealth is produced and distributed.

February 2007 MGMT 202 1 Module 1 Each discipline produces a distinctive way of understanding organisations and the behaviour of people in them. Most OB textbooks are dominated by a psychological perspective, which means that core OB topics have tended to focus on individual and group processes (motivation, leadership, teamwork, etc). The textbook for this course incorporates the psychological view, but draws more heavily on sociological and political perspectives than typical OB courses. This gives an appreciation of how seemingly ‘psychological’ factors are shaped by and embedded in social relations that stretch beyond organisational members and the boundaries attributed to organisations. For example, when considering a topic such as motivation, which draws heavily from psychology, we are also invited to consider the economic and political conditions of work that shape an individual’s motivation, as well as any relevant historical and cultural forces.

A common reaction to introductory courses in OB it is all just ‘commonsense’. For instance, it is ‘commonsense’ that effective managers require a high level of technical expertise, are able to plan and organise well, are skilful communicators and team builders etc. One of the aims of this course is not only to move beyond these ‘commonsense’ understandings of organisations, but to challenge ‘commonsense’ itself. When something is considered to be ‘commonsense’, we tend to treat it as an unquestionable truth that leaves no room for debate and discussion. For example, it is ‘commonsense’ that human nature means people will act in their economic self-interest. Many theories in organisation behaviour and in related disciplines such as economics are based on this assumption. In this course, you are encouraged to challenge taken- for-granted knowledge such as this. For instance, it can be argued that economic self- interest is not an essential quality of human nature, but rather an effect of how, in Western materialistic societies, the individual and wealth are elevated as key values. This has become so pervasive that it has created a ‘commonsense’ understanding that humans are inherently economically self-interested. Once we are prepared to challenge ‘commonsense’, we can then begin to explore why human nature is identified in particular ways that appeal to ‘commonsense’.

February 2007 MGMT 202 2 Module 1 What is the relevance of this to OB? Typical OB courses focus on providing ‘commonsense’ techniques and prescriptions that claim to make people more effective managers, through such things as better communication and planning. This approach is managerialist in that it assigns to managers the exclusive power to define the goals of the organisation and their means of achievement. In its extreme form, it proposes that everything can be managed efficiently through the application of the right techniques.

Knights and Willmott believe this approach is highly idealistic, fails to capture the complexities of human behaviour in organisations and is therefore likely to be of little practical value. So, why do most OB courses present a ‘commonsense’ view of management? Knights and Willmott suggest it presents a positive and glamorous image of management that is attractive to students because it portrays management as a responsible and respectable profession where the manager’s role is ‘simply’ to enable others to achieve the shared goals of the organisation. They argue that this fails to recognise the complexities and difficulties of managing. Often those being managed do not share management’s goals for the organisation and these people might have a very low opinion of managers.

Activity 1 Think of examples from history where knowledge gained the status of ‘commonsense’ but was later found to be deeply flawed (e.g., the view that the world was flat). Can you think of examples related to managing organisations?

February 2007 MGMT 202 3 Module 1 What is an organisation?

It is common in introductory chapters in OB textbooks to provide a definition for ‘organisation’. Knights and Willmott provide three different ways in which ‘organisation’ can be defined, identified and analysed.

In the entity view, organisations are unified entities consisting of a set of characteristics, such as rules, structures and hierarchies. Attention is focused on aspects of organising that coincide with the concerns of senior management, with little attention given to conflicting interests of other members of the organisation. This view is criticised for being politically naïve and simplistic and for constructing a ‘commonsense’ view of OB.

In the process view, the focus is not on organisations as entities, but on processes of organising wherever organised activities occur, such in families, sports teams and so on. Organisations are made up of processes of organising, but these processes are not confined to organisations. These processes give rise to the activities which the entity view describes as tasks, roles, structures etc.

February 2007 MGMT 202 4 Module 1 Knights and Willmott prefer a concept view of organising, which understands that ‘organisation’ is a word that can assume a variety of meanings and can exert a number of different effects. These meanings are always partial and political. It is partial in the sense that it reveals only one aspect of ‘organisation’ and political because it encourages people to see and organise the world in particular ways. For example, there is a long tradition within management thinking of conceiving of organisations as being like machines – with parts (departments) which take inputs (money, labour,etc) to produce outputs (products). These parts sometime breakdown (through poor communication) and sometimes require heavy maintenance (restructuring), with new parts being added or removed. From a concept view of organisation, this is partial because it downplays the significance of human emotions, anxieties etc and political because it encourages us to think about solving management problems and issues in particular ways. When a particular concept of organisations becomes dominant, it becomes ‘commonsense’.

Mainstream and critical perspectives on OB

The curriculum of OB courses usually gives priority to ideas that are conservative and pro-managerial. For example, it is assumed that managers alone have the knowledge and the right to determine how work should be organised. This perspective is the mainstream or orthodox view. It is what most people currently recognise as a legitimate way of doing or thinking about management and organisation. It regards managing as a technical activity and organisations as a neutral instrument for achieving shared goals. As a consequence, OB can become a technology of control, with each topic (such as leadership, motivation) presented as an element of a control toolkit. Efficiency and profit are seen to inform everything that happens in organisations, while social and moral responsibilities are forgotten, except when recognising these responsibilities becomes a profit-maximising strategy (as is often the case with ‘corporate social responsibility’).

February 2007 MGMT 202 5 Module 1 In each chapter of the text, the presentation of the mainstream approach is followed by a critical perspective. Here ‘critical’ has a particular meaning of challenging received wisdom or orthodoxy in some way. For example, whereas the mainstream focus is on shared goals in an organisation, the critical view regards organisations as a political instrument for achieving contested goals. It should be noted that ‘mainstream’ and ‘critical’ are not sealed ‘boxes of knowledge’. What is considered critical, radical and even subversive thinking at one point of time can, in the future, become part of the mainstream. An example is the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa led by Nelson Mandela. His views were at one time considered so critical that those in authority considered that they warranted his imprisonment, but these views eventually became mainstream thinking to the extent that Mandela became president. Another example is ideas around corporate social responsibility and the view that organisations have responsibilities aside from the maximisation of profit. This was initially considered a critical view, but has largely been adopted by the mainstream.

Activity 2 After reading this chapter consider the expectations that you had coming into this course. How much was it aligned to a mainstream or ‘commonsense’ view of organisations? What is your response to the idea of a critical view? How might it encourage you to think differently about organisations that you are familiar with?

February 2007 MGMT 202 6 Module 1 Key words sociology organisation psychology entity view politics process view economics concept view commonsense mainstream taken-for-granted critical managerialist

February 2007 MGMT 202 7 Module 1