Chapter 11: Goals, Power, and Control
Goal Setting in Organizations
Goals are difficult to
define and conceptualize. From a rationalist perspective goals provide
criteria for generating and selecting among alternative courses of action
(Simon 1964) -- the provide direction and constraint for decision making
and action. Natural system analysts emphasize that goals are a source of
identification and motivation for participants (Barnard, 1938). Selznick
(1949) notes that goals can become weapons to garner resources from the
environment and overcome opposition.
But goals don't always precede
actions. Often rationality is more post-decision than a predecision
occurance (Weick 1969) and often serves as a justification. Different goals
also arise in different parts of the organization.
Goals are often the result of a strategic
process, where organizations select their domain and competitive stance.
Sometimes strategy is actively planned, sometimes it is emergent.
Remember there are both individual
goals and organizational goals, and often these are in conflict. The
organizational goals are not the aggregate of individual goals.
Dominant Coalition
Who determines organizational goals? Cyert and March (1963) propose that
they are largely set by a negotiation process among members of dominant
coalitions pursuing certain interests. Over time the domant coalitions
shift in size and composition. Some of the factors affecting the power
of the dominant coalition are ownership,
ability to handle uncertainty, non-substability, and centrality.
But the environment also can influence
power structures in organizations. For example, the main trends in
business issues among American business influenced the selection of CEO
background (Fligstein 1987).
Anarchies and Adhocracies
There are some organizational classes which have no precise goals or agreed
upon action plans to achieve them. The extent of consensus on goals and
action plans can determine the most effective type of decsion-making structure
(Thompson and Tuden, 1959). March and his colleagues have defined these
ambiguous situations as organized anarchies.
The garbage-can theory (Cohen,
March, and Olsen 1972) adds that an organization "is a collection of
choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations
in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they
might be the answer, and decision makers looking for work". Problems,
solutions, participants, and choice opportunities flow in and out of a garbage
can, and which problems get attached to solutions is largely due to chance.
Goals often change if the environment is unstable. Often a flexible, movable
"tent-like structure" is more useful than an intricate, rigid
"palace-like" structure (Hedberg, Nystron, and Starbuck 1976 in
Scott p. 299).
Often organizations in these environments engage in less long-term strategic
thinking about more on adhoc, emergent strategies -- they replace rational
decision-making with experiential learning. In this model technologies are
continuously invented, shaped, and modified in the light of feedback from
the environment (Scott p. 300). Argyris (1982) defined learning that changes
the rules and methods for deciding as double-loop learning.
Conceptions of Goals and Theoretical Models
Grandori (1987) notes that how an analyst perceives the goals of an organization
often determines which type of theoretical perspective the analyst uses
to explain organizational structure. If they note multiple, conflicting
objectives of interest groups, they tend to adopt a resource dependence
model. If they see the inertia of organizational structure, they often apply
a population ecology perspective. If they relax the assumption that organizations
have fixed objectives they tend to emphasize learning models. (Scott p.
301).
Control Systems
So much of organizational theory directly or indirectly deals with control
-- administration, authority, automation, boundaries, bureaucratization,
centralization, contracts, coordination, discipline, evaluation, formalization,
hierarchy, incentives, intergration, internalization, performance programs,
power, procedures, routinization, rules, sanctions, socializaton, supervision,
etc. (list from Scott p.301).
Power
Emerson (1962) defined power as relational, situational, and at least potentially
reciprocal (Scott p. 302). It is not the characteristic of an individual
but a property of a social relation. The power of superordinates is based
on their ability and willingness to sanction others and the value of the
reward and punishments in the eyes of these other people.
Thus power is a function of dependence. It is a product of the formal structure
(e.g., hierarchy) and the personal characteristics of individuals. As expected,
rational systems emphasize formal power structures, and natural systems
emphasize informal power structures.
Authority
Social scientists define authority as legitimate power -- the combination
of a set of persons and power relations and a set of norms governing the
exercise of power and the response to it. In informal groups, obedience
becomes somewhat independent of the superior's individual characteristics
and more dependent on the social norms regarding the position. Authority
structures tend to be more stable and effective control systems than power
structures (Scott p. 306)
Structural Control
Technical and bureaucratic control structures are important instances of
structural controls. "Differences in power are built into the definition
of relations among positions, and these power differences are normatively
justified" (Scott p. 310). The power of both capitalists and laborers
can get embedded in these structural control arragements.
The organization culture can also
be a source of power structures as well as a source of unification among
participants. Much of the 1980's management literature focused on how to
develop "strong" cultures (Deal and Kennedy, 1982).
Modern and Post-Modern Organizations
As one "opens" up their definition of an organization, with its
multiple realities, interests, coalitions, it becomes difficult to view
the organization as a rational system. A "modernist" approach
seeks to "impose order on the chaos, to resolve or suppress the contradictions,
to integrate the competing interests and agendas so that a single, harmonious
vision guides decisions and a consistent set of premises governs the conduct
of participants." (Scott p. 312).
A post-modernist view emphasizes
the diversity of elements in organizations. It emphasizes that organizations
ARE cultures, and their essence is found in their symbolic order (Scott
p. 313). The order is constructed through the social interactions, and post-modernists
often use "deconstruction" to show how meaning is constructed
from basic elements. There is no one truth -- rational perspectives are
given no more weight than natural perspectives in understanding what "goes
on" in organizations. It's difficult to understand what a "post-modern"
organization looks like.