Communicating Many Levels Above

In a large organization, it is difficult, to communicate to someone who is much above one's level. Even meeting up with one's manager's manager is rare, and meeting up with someone who is higher up than that is almost impossible.

I've heard in many companies the "Open door policy" that CEO's have with all their employees, and wonder if anyone has actually used the policy with any efficacy. It would seem strange, if not downright weird, for an average employee to walk over to the CEO's office, even if the matter is relevant. The "standard" procedure is to talk to one's manager and never higher up than that. But apparently, IBM's Open Door Policy was indeed used by several workers who were dissatisfied with their immediate manager for some reason or another.

Organizational Hierarchy

One of the most difficult things to get a feel for in a democratic organization is that of Hierarchy. By definition, a Democracy is where all members are treated as equal. However, hardly any organization, including a democratic one, is sans Hierarchy. What does it mean to say that everyone is equal, but the leader is higher up than others? In my opinion, true Democracy will work if and only if the leader fully understands that he or she is in the role of serving the organization, instead of living under the illusion that the leader is "superior" to the rest of the organization.

Personal Adaptation to Organizational Change

One of the important aspects of change in a company is that of an employee's adaptation to the change. There are people whose personality is such that they thrive on change, and welcome almost any kind of change in the company - they like the fact that nothing stays still. These people are the ones who adapt most easily to change.

On the other hand, there are people who would prefer if things remain the same so that they don't have the hassle of adapting to the change. They probably believe in the idiom "A known devil is better than an unknown angel - a known defect in the organization is better than the unknown benefits of change." These people have a hard time adapting to change.

What is Change?

The section on "What is Change?" in the textbook (page 315) talks about the multiple meanings of the word "Change". One definition that is proposed in the textbook is: "the difference(s) between two (or more) successive conditions, states, or moments of time."

In the context of an organization, I would also add the word "significant" to describe the kind of difference(s) that constitute change. For example, there may be insignificant changes in an organization that may be "change" as per the above definition, but that may not be very relevant to the organization as a whole - for example, a corner cubicle in the corner may carry a new painting on its wall, or there may be a coffee machine that has run out of coffee, or a document that no one reads may be corrected for spelling mistakes. These could be labeled "change" according to the above definition, but they aren't very relevant to understanding an organization.

Hence the alternative definition in the textbook that is more apt in the context of an organization is: "the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system". This definition makes it clear that a modification needs to occur in the STRUCTURE and FUNCTION of a social system (like an organization) for change to be relevant.

Conflict Without a Process

Page 287 of the textbook says that conflict is a process rather than an isolated event - Conflict usually arises over the course of time instead of being focussed on a single occurrence.

The textbook may be correct for a majority of the cases when conflict arises, but I feel that there certainly may exist cases when a conflict arises due to one event. I don't have a concrete instance that I can quote from my personal experience, but can conjure up a hypothetical example to support my view:

In an organization, most employees have customers who are also part of the organization. If an employee does not satisfy a customer's demand that was perceived as vital by the customer but not the employee, then a conflict may brew based on that one occurrence. The implicit understanding made by the customer is that the person serving him or her will satisfy the demands, but when that tacit promise is broken, then that could sow the seeds of the conflict - and may be based on a single event.

Who is to Blame?

The textbook says that one of the biggest issues with power in organizations is whom to blame (page 245). The textbook also refers to the novels of Franz Kafka, where the person who has taken the decision is "fuzzy", even though the decision itself is of serious consequence.

I've read Kafka's novel "The Trial", which takes us through the life of a man who is arrested, but does not have any idea why! He does ask questions about the reason for his arrest, but his questions are met with ignorance ("We are just constables, better ask your lawyer"), incredulity ("You don't know why! Come on!"), haste ("I really have to be some place, no time to explain now"), etc. It can be quite a frightful thing not knowing the reason for one being blamed!

Inequality in a Democratic Organization

Page 231 talks about the problem of dealing with Inequality in Democratic Organizations, where members of the organizations are considered to be equal in the eyes of the organization. One way to prevent an entrenchment of power by one person is by offering the role of director or other high position to people on a rotational basis.

The problem of inequality in a democracy is not likely to disappear if there is a free market associated with the democracy, since capitalism always results in an unequal distribution of wealth among the citizens. Most of the nations of the world are turning towards capitalism for their economic structure (over 95% of the world's countries have a capitalist economy now, including Russia and China), and in every country with a capitalist economy, the gap between the rich and poor is steadily increasing, which does not brood well for equality between citizens.

Risks of Over-identification

The textbook warns about the risks of high levels of identification of employees (page 115) to the organization. This may manifest itself in over-conformity, a lack of creativity, and the risk of lack of risk-taking!

I believe the case of employees staying with one organization over the course of several years, perhaps decades or even a lifetime falls under this scenario. They grow so attached to the organization that they become mypoic and fail to realize that there exist various different cultural norms and that their organization represents only one among many such norms.

This shows the hazards of managers who stay with one company for such a long time that they begin to expect unopposed acceptance by employees of everything that management says, instead of encouraging their employees to challenge existing theories in the light of new facts. This has the unfortunate potential to hinder the improvement of an organization. As we saw in Chapter two of the textbook, it is only by constantly rising up to challenges that an organization evolves in a healthy manner.

What is Identity?

Page 109 of the textbook provides a historical account of identity - in ancient Greece, the etymological root of the term actually meant SIMILARITY rather than INDIVIDUALITY. The word referred to in the ancient context was that which connected various people, such as the people of Athens identifying themselves with the "Athenian Identity". Under this ancient definition of the term, as an MBA student at San Jose state University, I would identify myself with other students at San Jose State University (we share the same University) or as an MBA student, I would identify myself with MBA students in other universities (we are in the same discipline).

It is interesting that the term Identity when used in late eighteenth century Europe, started being referred to an individual self exhibiting Uniqueness rather than Similarity. This is the meaning of IDENTITY that we generally know and use today.

Emotional versus Professional

The textbook distinguishes between emotional and professional behavior (page 66), with the implication that professionalism is necessarily unemotional, especially in the organizational context.

This principle does not generalize to ALL organizations - for there certainly exist organizations where being emotional is actually encouraged rather than disparaged. Religious organizations such as Churches, for instance, encourage their members to display emotions in a constructive manner rather than be detached to their fellow members. I once volunteered at a pro-literacy organization, and many of my colleagues there openly displayed empathy, and even actively encouraged it. This includes those who actually professionally worked there (i.e. they were paid for their contributions to managing the organization), not only the volunteers.

The film industry requires its actors to be emotional when the situation demands it, and actors are considered mature only when they are able to display strong emotions in a realistic manner.

My guess is that those organizations that value humanity above all (such as religious and charitable organizations) will respect emotions, but those that value money above all (such as business organizations) will not do so.

Employees First in an Organization

The textbook refers to the views of the great Moral Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle (page 427), and how their views are still relevant to this day. The book also touches upon the views of Immanual Kant, whose ideas I respect.

Kant was of the opinion that Moral action ought to have Man as the end and never as the means to the end. In other words, the ultimate goal of all Moral action is to aid or improve Man, and an action that treats Man as merely the means to an end, but not the end itself, cannot be called moral at all.

I believe that this principle goes to the very foundation of the Ethics of an organization. First and foremost, People are the most valuable entities in any organization. So an organization ought to place its own employees ahead of everything else. Hence the first moral principle of any organization is "Employees First".

Organizations ought to place human values above the other insentient aspects of the organization. In some sense, Employees ARE the Organization!